Principles of Peer Review

Provide objective, evidence based feedback that improves methodology and reporting clarity.

What to Evaluate

Assess study design, statistical analysis, patient relevance, and data integrity. Flag concerns about bias, reproducibility, or ethical compliance.

Confidentiality and Conflicts

Maintain confidentiality and decline reviews if conflicts could affect impartiality.

Review Structure

Begin with a brief summary, list major issues, and then note minor revisions. This structure helps authors respond effectively.

Aim for clarity and consistency across sections and citations.

Clinical Relevance

Comment on whether results translate to epilepsy care, patient safety, and care pathways. Highlight missing clinical context, unclear outcomes, or inadequate follow-up. Suggestions on how authors can link findings to protocols or guidelines are especially valuable to readers. Please note if subgroup analyses require clearer justification and if limitations are fully described for decision making.

Statistical Rigor

Evaluate whether sample size calculations, confidence intervals, and effect sizes are reported appropriately. If complex methods are used, recommend additional explanation or specialist review. Point out inconsistencies between tables, figures, and narrative results to prevent misinterpretation. Clarity on missing data handling is essential. Provide specific corrections where possible and note any overstatement of significance in conclusions.

Ethics and Safety

Check that informed consent, participant eligibility, and adverse event reporting are clearly stated. Flag any ethical ambiguities, including retrospective approvals or unclear data permissions. Safety reporting is critical in epilepsy studies, so ensure that risk mitigation is explicit. Suggest revisions when patient privacy might be compromised and highlight the need for data de-identification.

Tone and Constructive Feedback

Use professional, respectful language and focus on how authors can improve the work. Distinguish between essential corrections and optional enhancements. Constructive feedback accelerates revisions and supports the journal's commitment to fair peer review. Avoid personal remarks and provide concrete examples when possible. Timely, clear reviews help authors and readers alike while reducing editorial delays for publication.