Reviewer Guidelines

01. Purpose and scope of the guide

This guide sets out the responsibilities of PRAXIS external reviewers. Its purpose is to support independent, rigorous, respectful, and useful assessments of manuscripts across the health sciences, in accordance with Editorial PRAXIS's Institutional Framework for Research Integrity, Ethics, and Editorial Governance.

Peer review advises the journal's leadership and editorial team on research and contributions relevant to practice, education, innovation, management, and health policy. The report informs the decision but does not replace it: the responsible editor makes the final decision, also considering the journal's multidisciplinary scope, the integrity of the submission, and other legitimate editorial factors.

02. Peer review model

Consult the peer review policy for the review model. During assessment, do not deliberately seek the authors' identities or include your signature or identifying details in comments intended for them.

If you recognize the authors, inform the editor before continuing and disclose any circumstances that could affect your impartiality.

03. Before accepting an invitation

Before accepting, reviewers must confirm that they have sufficient expertise to assess the main aspects of the manuscript, can meet the deadline stated in the OJS invitation, and have no conflicts that compromise or appear to compromise their independence.

Subject expertise

Accept only if you can responsibly assess the research question, design, and main clinical or scientific field. Inform the editor if additional methodological or statistical expertise is needed.

Availability

Accept only if you can submit the report within the stated deadline. If difficulties arise, notify the editor before the deadline expires.

Conflicts of interest

Disclose personal, institutional, academic, financial, competitive, or collaborative relationships that could influence your judgment. Decline when a conflict is significant.

Suitability of the manuscript

Do not recommend rejection because of personal preferences, negative findings, a lack of statistical significance, or disagreement with your own hypotheses.

Language

Accept if you can accurately understand and assess the manuscript in the assigned language.

04. Conflicts of interest and recusal

Conflicts are not limited to financial interests. Disclose any circumstance that could affect objectivity or create a reasonable perception of bias. Disclosure allows the editor to determine whether the conflict can be managed or requires recusal.

• Close personal relationships, clear hostility, or an active dispute involving people reasonably identified as connected with the work.
• Recent research collaboration, a direct reporting relationship, academic supervision, or relevant institutional dependence.
• Direct competition for funding, patents, scientific priority, products, programs, or research areas.
• Financial interests, consultancy, employment, shareholdings, or other financial relationships relevant to the subject.
• Intellectual commitments so strong that they prevent balanced assessment of evidence challenging the reviewer's prior views.

05. Handling review materials

Work within the assigned OJS submission. If you need another person's assistance, obtain the editor's permission before sharing materials and identify their contribution. On completion, delete unnecessary local copies and report any access or disclosure incident.

Before using external tools, consult the artificial intelligence policy. Report integrity concerns through the editorial channel specified in the ethics and integrity policy.

06. Principles of a high-quality review

Independence

The report must be free from pressure, favors, retaliation, commercial interests, or personal agendas.

Objectivity

Criticism must relate to evidence, methods, internal consistency, or reporting standards.

Proportionality

Distinguish correctable errors from flaws that invalidate the design, data, or conclusions.

Respect

Avoid humiliating, sarcastic, discriminatory, or disparaging language.

Usefulness

Explain what needs correction and why. Avoid vague comments such as “improve the methodology.”

Fairness

Do not penalize negative findings, innovative approaches, or settings with fewer resources when the work is scientifically sound.

Traceability

Each major comment must relate to a specific section, finding, table, figure, analysis, or requirement.

07. Recommended assessment workflow

1. Read the entire manuscript to understand the research question, design, and main contribution.
2. Confirm that it fits an accepted journal section and reasonably meets its presentation requirements.
3. Identify the actual study design and applicable reporting guideline.
4. Assess methods, ethics, analysis, risk of bias, results, and consistency between objectives and conclusions.
5. Examine tables, figures, references, supplementary materials, registration or protocol, and checklists where applicable.
6. Separate major concerns from minor corrections.
7. Prepare constructive comments for authors and confidential comments for the editor when needed.
8. Select a final recommendation consistent with the seriousness of the identified problems.

08. Overall assessment of the manuscript

Relevance and scope

Does the work contribute knowledge relevant to health research, practice, education, innovation, management, or policy within PRAXIS's multidisciplinary scope?

Originality

Do the question, data, synthesis, or argument offer an identifiable contribution? Is there apparent duplication or redundant publication?

Research question and objectives

Are they clear, specific, and consistent with the design and analysis?

Design

Is the design appropriate for answering the research question? Is it correctly identified?

Sample and participants

Are selection, sample size, eligibility criteria, and losses described and justified?

Variables and interventions

Are they defined and measured using appropriate, valid, or sufficiently described instruments?

Analysis

Are the statistical or qualitative methods appropriate, transparent, and reproducible?

Ethics

Are ethics approval, consent, registration, or exemptions reported where applicable?

Results

Do they address the objectives without unnecessary duplication between text, tables, and figures?

Discussion

Does it interpret findings without exaggeration, acknowledge limitations, and compare them with relevant evidence?

Conclusions

Do they follow from the results and avoid unsupported claims of causality, generalizability, or certainty?

References

Are they relevant, verifiable, and current where appropriate, without inappropriate self-citation or coercive citation?

09. Section-by-section review

Title

It should accurately reflect the content and identify the study design when required by the reporting guideline.

Abstract

It should be consistent with the manuscript, include the main findings, and avoid claims absent from the full text.

Introduction

It should justify the problem, define the knowledge gap, and conclude with a clear objective or research question.

Methods

They should explain what was done, with whom, where, when, how measurements were made, and how data were analyzed. This section is central to assessing validity.

Results

They should correspond to the stated analysis, include denominators and relevant measures, and avoid extensive interpretation.

Discussion

It should explain the meaning of the findings, compare them with the literature, consider bias and limitations, and avoid unjustified extrapolation.

Conclusion

It should answer the objective and retain the level of certainty supported by the design.

Tables and figures

They should be legible, self-explanatory, consistent with the text, and free from visual presentation that distorts interpretation.

References

They should follow Vancouver style, include DOIs when available, and prioritize original, relevant, reliable sources.

10. Presentation requirements

Check the requirements for the relevant section in the Author guidelines. Notify the editor of departures that matter for assessment; distinguish minor presentation corrections from problems affecting the validity of the study.

11. Methodological and reporting standards by study design

Reporting guidelines do not replace methodological judgment. Check that the guideline matches the study design and that a completed checklist is not treated as automatic certification of quality.

Randomized trial

CONSORT 2025; prospective registration; protocol/SPIRIT 2025 where applicable. Assess randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, losses, prespecified analyses, harms, registration, and agreement between the protocol and manuscript.

Observational study: cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional

STROBE. Assess selection, measurement, confounding, temporality, bias, study size, analysis, and limits of causal inference.

Qualitative research

COREQ for interviews and focus groups, or SRQR as appropriate. Assess the methodological framework, sampling, reflexivity, data generation and analysis, credibility, saturation or sufficient information, participant quotations, and ethics.

Clinical case report

CARE. Assess the timeline, diagnostic assessment, intervention, clinical course, outcomes, consent, and clinical learning.

Systematic review or meta-analysis

PRISMA 2020; PRISMA-S; PROSPERO when eligible; PRISMA-P for protocols. Assess the question, reproducible search, reviewer selection procedures, extraction, risk of bias, synthesis, heterogeneity, missing evidence, certainty, and consistency with registration.

Scoping review

PRISMA-ScR where applicable. Assess the mapping objective, sources, eligibility, selection, extraction, and transparent presentation of scope.

Diagnostic accuracy

STARD for primary studies; PRISMA-DTA for reviews where applicable. Assess the participant spectrum, index test, reference standard, verification, thresholds, and bias.

Complex interventions

TIDieR as a supplement where appropriate. Check whether the description allows replication and distinguishes components, dose, provider, adaptation, and fidelity.

12. Risk of bias, critical appraisal, and certainty of evidence

For reviews and evidence syntheses, check that the risk-of-bias tool matches the design and research question. Do not accept arbitrary overall scores when the original instrument uses domain-based judgments.

JBI Critical Appraisal Tools

Design-specific critical appraisal where appropriate.

RoB 2

Randomized trials included in evidence syntheses.

ROBINS-I

Non-randomized studies of interventions.

ROBINS-E

Non-randomized studies of exposures.

QUADAS-3 / QUADAS-C

Diagnostic accuracy and comparisons of tests.

PROBAST

Diagnostic or prognostic prediction models.

ROBIS

Risk of bias in systematic reviews.

AMSTAR 2

Methodological critical appraisal of intervention reviews.

ROB-ME

Risk of bias due to missing evidence in meta-analyses.

GRADE

Certainty of the body of evidence for each outcome.

13. Assessment of quantitative and statistical methods

• Check whether sample size was planned or justified and whether losses or missing data could change the results.
• Verify that variables and outcomes are defined before interpreting their analyses.
• Check the correspondence between variable type, distribution, and statistical test.
• Assess effect measures and confidence intervals, rather than p-values alone.
• Examine assumptions, adjustment for confounding, multiplicity, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses where applicable.
• Check numerical consistency across the text, tables, figures, and participant flow diagram.
• Do not require statistical significance as a condition of publication. Negative or inconclusive results can be scientifically valuable.
• Identify unjustified causal interpretations in designs unsuited to causal inference.

14. Assessment of qualitative research

• Assess consistency between the question, paradigm or approach, sampling strategy, data generation methods, and analysis.
• Check for sufficient description of context, participants, and the researcher-participant relationship.
• Assess transparency in coding, development of categories or themes, and procedures supporting credibility or reflexivity.
• Check the appropriate use of quotations or empirical evidence to support interpretations.
• Assess saturation, information sufficiency, or another criterion compatible with the approach used.
• Check consistency between qualitative findings, discussion, and conclusions, without treating isolated frequencies as substitutes for meaning.

15. Assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

• Confirm that the review has a prior protocol and, when eligible in health research, prospective PROSPERO registration with a verifiable CRD number and date.
• Compare objectives, eligibility criteria, outcomes, and synthesis with the registration or protocol, and require explanations for material changes.
• Check databases, the last search date, complete search strategies, controlled vocabulary and free-text terms, filters, grey literature, and deduplication.
• Check independent reviewer procedures for selection and extraction, or justification of alternative procedures.
• Assess whether the risk-of-bias tool matches the included designs and whether domain-level judgments are reported.
• For meta-analyses, assess effect measures, the model, heterogeneity, missing data, subgroups or meta-regression, sensitivity analyses, missing evidence, and software.
• Check consistency between the PRISMA flow diagram, text, tables, appendices, and final number of studies.
• If GRADE is used, check that certainty is assessed by outcome and that every judgment is justified.

16. Ethics, participants, and registration

Formal ethics approval does not remove the reviewer's responsibility to identify apparent ethical problems. Serious concerns must be communicated confidentially to the editor.

Human participants

Check the committee or body, institution, approval number or code, and consent or exemption where applicable.

Dominican Republic

Check compliance with the applicable framework and, where relevant, CONABIOS jurisdiction.

Clinical trial

Ethics approval and prospective registration before enrolling the first participant, unless a documented editorial exception applies.

Clinical case or identifiable image

Specific consent for publication when identification is reasonably possible.

Vulnerable populations

Justification for inclusion and safeguards against coercion, exploitation, or disproportionate risk.

Animals

Applicable approval or oversight, welfare, and recognized reporting standards where relevant.

17. Research integrity: responding to a concern

Reviewers must not conduct their own investigation or accuse authors in comments visible to them. Describe observable facts and communicate the concern confidentially to the editor, who will manage the case under the Institutional Framework and COPE guidance.

Plagiarism or substantial duplication

Identify the source or overlap for the editor, without treating an automated similarity percentage as conclusive proof.

Implausible or inconsistent data or results

Specify the inconsistency and request verification or documentation where appropriate.

Image manipulation

Identify suspicious duplication, cropping, or alterations and report them confidentially.

Questionable ethics approval

Explain the basis for concern; the editor will decide whether documentation or institutional consultation is needed.

Coercive citation or citation manipulation

Do not demand citations for personal benefit. Flag irrelevant citation networks when evidence supports the concern.

Peer review manipulation

Report any contact, pressure, false identity, or attempt to influence the assessment outside the editorial channel.

18. Writing the review report

The report must be specific enough for the editor to understand the basis of the recommendation and for authors to respond point by point.

19. Major and minor comments

Major

A design unable to answer the question; substantial bias; insufficiently described methods; incorrect statistical analysis; missing required approval or registration; a substantive contradiction between results and conclusions; a systematic review without a reproducible search or appropriate risk-of-bias assessment.

Minor

Clarifying a definition, improving wording, correcting numbering, completing a reference, explaining an abbreviation, improving a table or figure legend, or correcting a small inconsistency that does not affect the central validity of the work.

Do not artificially split one issue into dozens of minor comments. Grouping related observations supports an orderly response and reduces editorial noise.

20. Final recommendation

Accept submission

Suitable for publication with minor revisions

Resubmit for review / Major revisions

Reject / Not suitable for publication

21. Second-round review

• Read the authors' response and check whether each comment was substantively addressed.
• Do not introduce entirely new requirements unless the revision reveals an important problem that was previously not apparent.
• Accept justified responses even when authors do not adopt the reviewer's exact proposed solution.
• Focus on whether major problems have been resolved and whether changes introduce additional errors.
• Maintain the same standards of respect, confidentiality, and independence as in the first round.

22. Rating matrix to support the review report

This matrix is advisory and does not produce an automatic acceptance score. The final judgment must be qualitative and reasoned.

Suggested scale: 1 = Poor | 2 = Insufficient | 3 = Adequate with corrections | 4 = Good | 5 = Very strong

23. Final reviewer checklist

☐ I have confirmed that I can assess the manuscript without a significant conflict of interest.

☐ I have maintained confidentiality and have not shared the manuscript outside the authorized system.

☐ I have complied with the artificial intelligence policy throughout the review.

☐ I have not attempted to identify the authors.

☐ My review focuses on scientific content rather than personal or institutional characteristics.

☐ I have identified the actual design and relevant reporting guideline.

☐ I have assessed methods, analysis, ethics, results, discussion, tables, figures, and references.

☐ For a systematic review, I have checked the protocol or registration, PRISMA, search, risk of bias, and synthesis.

☐ Where applicable, I have checked prospective trial registration and consistency with the protocol.

☐ I have distinguished major concerns from minor issues.

☐ I have avoided offensive, sarcastic, or disparaging comments.

☐ I have not demanded citations to my own work except where objectively necessary and scientifically justified.

☐ I have communicated possible integrity concerns only to the editor where appropriate.

☐ My final recommendation is consistent with the problems described.

☐ I have not promised acceptance or communicated rejection directly to the authors.

24. Suggested review report template

A. Brief summary

Explain in 2–4 sentences what the manuscript studies and what you consider its main contribution. Do not repeat the entire abstract.

B. Overall assessment

Identify the main strengths and the central problem or issue driving the need for revisions.

C. Major comments

Number each comment. Identify the specific section, table, figure, or method. Explain why the issue matters and what information or correction is needed.

D. Minor comments

Include clarifications, consistent terminology, presentation, references, and corrections that do not compromise the work's central validity.

E. Confidential comments to the editor

Use this section for conflicts, integrity concerns, suspected misconduct, or assessments that should not be communicated directly to authors. Do not repeat all comments intended for authors here.

25. Reviewer recognition, performance, and training

Editorial PRAXIS may recognize reviewer contributions without compromising double-anonymous review or the confidentiality of individual submissions. It may also assess the quality, timeliness, usefulness, and conduct of reviews. Repeated superficial, late, disrespectful, or unethical reports may lead to suspension of further invitations.

Continuing reviewer education forms part of the institutional quality system. Editorial PRAXIS may update this guide when journal policies, the Institutional Framework, legislation, or applicable international standards change.

26. Standards and reference documents

1. Editorial PRAXIS. Normativa Institucional de Integridad Científica, Ética y Gobernanza Editorial [Institutional Framework for Research Integrity, Ethics, and Editorial Governance]. NIIEGE-PRX-001. Current version.
2. PRAXIS. Guía para evaluadores/as y directrices para autores [Reviewer and author guidance] [Internet]. 2026 [cited 2026 Aug 16]. Available from: https://revistapraxis.org/index.php/praxis/reviewer-guideliness
3. Committee on Publication Ethics. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers [Internet]. COPE; [cited 2026 Aug 16]. Available from: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers
4. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals [Internet]. Updated January 2026 [cited 2026 Aug 16]. Available from: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/
5. EQUATOR Network. Reporting guideline resources for health research [Internet]. [cited 2026 Aug 16]. Available from: https://www.equator-network.org/
6. PRISMA. PRISMA 2020 and extensions [Internet]. [cited 2026 Aug 16]. Available from: https://www.prisma-statement.org/
7. CONSORT-SPIRIT. CONSORT 2025 and SPIRIT 2025 [Internet]. 2025 [cited 2026 Aug 16]. Available from: https://www.consort-spirit.org/
8. JBI. Critical appraisal tools [Internet]. [cited 2026 Aug 16]. Available from: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools
9. Risk of Bias. Risk of Bias tools: RoB 2, ROBINS-I, ROBINS-E, ROB-ME [Internet]. [cited 2026 Aug 16]. Available from: https://www.riskofbias.info/
10. GRADE Working Group. GRADE Working Group [Internet]. [cited 2026 Aug 16]. Available from: https://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/