Reviewer Instructions
Our Dermatology Online appreciates the contribution of expert reviewers to the quality, integrity, and reliability of the scientific literature.
Peer reviewers play an essential role in evaluating submitted manuscripts and helping the editorial team make informed publication decisions.
These instructions apply to all reviewers invited to evaluate manuscripts submitted to Our Dermatology Online.
1. Peer Review Model
Our Dermatology Online uses a double-blind peer-review process.
The identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to each other during the peer-review process.
Each research manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area.
Reviewers should not be members of the journal’s editorial team when acting as external peer reviewers.
The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor after consideration of the available peer-review reports and the manuscript.
Peer reviewers provide recommendations and expert assessments; they do not make the final publication decision.
2. Accepting an Invitation to Review
Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should consider whether:
- the manuscript falls within their area of expertise;
- they have sufficient time to complete the review;
- they have any personal, professional, financial, academic, or other conflict of interest;
- they can provide an objective and independent assessment;
- they can maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript.
Reviewers should decline the invitation if they are unable to provide an impartial assessment.
If a reviewer identifies a potential conflict of interest after accepting an invitation, they should inform the handling editor as soon as possible.
3. Confidentiality
Manuscripts submitted to the journal are confidential documents.
Reviewers must not:
- share the manuscript with another person without permission from the handling editor;
- distribute or reproduce the manuscript;
- discuss the manuscript with colleagues, students, or other third parties;
- disclose the identity of the authors;
- disclose their own identity to the authors;
- use unpublished information from the manuscript for personal, academic, commercial, or professional advantage.
The contents of the manuscript, reviewer report, editorial correspondence, and peer-review process must remain confidential unless the journal expressly authorises disclosure.
After completing the review, reviewers should continue to respect the confidentiality of the manuscript and the review process.
4. Artificial Intelligence and Automated Tools
Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts.
Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, unpublished manuscript text, figures, tables, patient information, research data, or other confidential material to generative AI systems for the purpose of generating a peer-review report.
Generative AI tools must not replace the reviewer’s independent scholarly assessment.
Reviewers remain personally responsible for the content, accuracy, fairness, and confidentiality of their review.
Limited use of automated tools for language correction or editing of a review may be acceptable provided that:
- confidential manuscript information is not disclosed to an unauthorised external system;
- the reviewer remains responsible for the final report;
- the use does not replace the reviewer’s independent assessment.
The journal’s complete requirements concerning artificial intelligence are provided in the AI Policy.
5. Plagiarism and Similarity Screening
The journal uses Plagramme as a tool for similarity and plagiarism screening.
A reviewer may therefore encounter a manuscript that has already been subjected to automated similarity screening.
Reviewers should not treat an automated similarity score as conclusive evidence of plagiarism.
If a reviewer identifies substantial or suspicious textual overlap, they should:
- identify the relevant passage where possible;
- explain the nature of the concern;
- notify the handling editor through the confidential reviewer comments or another confidential channel.
The reviewer should not contact the authors directly about suspected plagiarism or research misconduct.
The editorial team will assess the concern and determine whether further investigation is required.
6. General Principles of Review
A review should be:
- objective;
- constructive;
- specific;
- evidence-based;
- respectful;
- relevant to the manuscript;
- sufficiently detailed to assist the editor and authors.
Reviewers should distinguish between major and minor concerns.
Major concerns may include:
- fundamental methodological problems;
- unsupported conclusions;
- serious errors in data interpretation;
- insufficient ethical oversight;
- serious problems with patient confidentiality;
- substantial plagiarism or inappropriate text reuse;
- unreliable or incomplete data;
- major deficiencies that prevent the conclusions from being supported.
Minor concerns may include:
- unclear wording;
- minor methodological clarification;
- typographical errors;
- incomplete references;
- formatting problems;
- minor inconsistencies.
7. Scientific Assessment
When reviewing a manuscript, reviewers should consider, as applicable:
Originality and Relevance
- Is the subject relevant to the journal’s scope?
- Does the manuscript provide useful scientific or clinical information?
- Is there sufficient originality or educational value?
Methodology
- Is the study design appropriate?
- Are the methods described sufficiently?
- Are inclusion and exclusion criteria clear where applicable?
- Are the methods scientifically appropriate?
- Are statistical methods appropriate where relevant?
Results
- Are the results clearly presented?
- Do the results support the conclusions?
- Are tables and figures accurate and appropriate?
- Are there inconsistencies between the text, tables, and figures?
Discussion and Conclusions
- Are the conclusions justified by the results?
- Are limitations appropriately discussed?
- Is the relevant literature adequately considered?
- Are claims appropriately supported?
References
Reviewers should consider whether the references are:
- relevant;
- sufficiently current where appropriate;
- accurately cited;
- appropriate to the claims made.
Reviewers should not request unnecessary citations to their own work or the work of colleagues.
Suggestions for additional references should have a clear scholarly justification.
8. Case Reports and Case Series
Because Our Dermatology Online publishes clinical case reports and case series, reviewers should pay particular attention to the ethical and scientific requirements applicable to these article types.
Reviewers should consider:
- whether the case is clinically relevant or educationally valuable;
- whether the presentation is sufficiently unusual, informative, or otherwise justified for publication;
- whether the clinical history is adequately described;
- whether the diagnostic process is sufficiently clear;
- whether relevant differential diagnoses are considered;
- whether investigations and diagnostic procedures are appropriately described;
- whether treatment and clinical outcome are adequately reported;
- whether the discussion places the case appropriately within the existing literature;
- whether the conclusions are supported by the presented information;
- whether unnecessary patient-identifying information has been included;
- whether appropriate consent for publication is stated where required;
- whether clinical photographs or other images are handled appropriately.
Reviewers should not request unnecessary patient-identifying information.
Where there is a concern regarding patient privacy or consent, the reviewer should report it confidentially to the handling editor.
The journal encourages authors of case reports and case series to follow the CARE reporting guidelines where appropriate.
9. Patient Consent and Confidentiality
Reviewers must pay particular attention to patient privacy in clinical manuscripts.
Potentially identifying information may include:
- names or initials;
- photographs;
- exact dates;
- locations;
- medical record numbers;
- distinctive physical characteristics;
- unusual combinations of demographic and clinical information;
- detailed descriptions that could allow recognition of the patient.
Where a reviewer believes that patient identification may be possible, this should be reported confidentially to the handling editor.
Reviewers must not request that authors provide additional identifying information unless it is genuinely necessary for scientific assessment and the request is ethically appropriate.
Detailed requirements are provided in the journal’s Patient Consent and Case Reports policy.
10. Research Ethics
Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript provides appropriate information concerning research ethics.
Where applicable, reviewers should check for:
- ethics committee or institutional review board approval;
- informed consent;
- clinical trial registration;
- animal ethics approval;
- other relevant ethical requirements.
The absence of an ethics statement or approval information should be brought to the attention of the handling editor where such information would reasonably be expected.
Reviewers should not make assumptions about institutional or national requirements. Where the ethical status of a study is unclear, the matter should be raised confidentially with the editor.
11. Human and Animal Research
For studies involving human participants, reviewers should consider whether the manuscript provides adequate information concerning ethical approval and informed consent where applicable.
For studies involving animals, reviewers should consider whether the manuscript provides appropriate information concerning:
- ethical approval;
- animal welfare;
- applicable institutional or national requirements;
- measures taken to minimise suffering where relevant.
Concerns regarding ethical treatment should be communicated confidentially to the handling editor.
12. Images, Figures, and Data
Reviewers should assess whether figures and images:
- are relevant to the manuscript;
- accurately represent the findings;
- are appropriately labelled;
- are consistent with the text;
- appear to have been presented without inappropriate manipulation.
If a reviewer suspects inappropriate image manipulation, fabrication, falsification, or other research-integrity concerns, the issue should be reported confidentially to the editor.
Reviewers should not attempt to conduct an independent investigation of suspected misconduct.
13. Potential Research Misconduct
Reviewers should notify the handling editor if they identify credible concerns regarding:
- plagiarism;
- duplicate publication;
- fabrication;
- falsification;
- inappropriate image manipulation;
- undisclosed conflicts of interest;
- authorship irregularities;
- manipulation of peer review;
- unethical research;
- inappropriate patient identification;
- other serious publication-ethics concerns.
Concerns should be communicated confidentially.
Reviewers should not accuse authors of misconduct in the public or author-facing portion of the review unless specifically instructed by the editor.
The editorial team will determine whether further investigation is appropriate.
14. Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect their objectivity.
Examples include:
- recent collaboration with an author;
- current or recent institutional affiliation with an author;
- personal relationships;
- direct academic competition;
- financial interests;
- commercial interests;
- involvement in closely related unpublished research.
Having a conflict does not necessarily imply misconduct, but it may make independent review inappropriate.
Where a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation or inform the editor immediately.
15. Reviewer Comments to Authors
Comments intended for the authors should be:
- professional;
- constructive;
- clear;
- specific;
- supported by scientific reasoning.
Reviewers should avoid:
- offensive or discriminatory language;
- personal criticism;
- defamatory statements;
- speculation about the authors’ motives;
- irrelevant comments;
- unnecessary demands for citations;
- requests designed primarily to increase citation counts.
Reviewers should focus on the manuscript rather than the identity, nationality, institution, or personal characteristics of the authors.
16. Confidential Comments to the Editor
Where the review system permits separate confidential comments to the editor, reviewers may use this section to communicate:
- suspected plagiarism;
- ethical concerns;
- conflicts of interest;
- concerns about patient confidentiality;
- suspected data or image manipulation;
- concerns about duplicate publication;
- other sensitive matters that should not be communicated directly to the authors.
Confidential comments to the editor should remain professional and should support the recommendation made in the review.
17. Recommendation to the Editor
The reviewer should provide an overall recommendation based on the scientific and ethical assessment of the manuscript.
Possible recommendations may include:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
The recommendation should be consistent with the comments provided in the review.
The reviewer should not communicate the final editorial decision to the authors.
The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or appropriately designated editor after considering the available evidence and peer-review reports.
18. Review Timeliness
Reviewers are asked to complete their reviews within the period communicated in the review invitation.
If additional time is required, reviewers should contact the editorial office as soon as possible.
If a reviewer is unable to complete the review, they should decline the invitation promptly so that the editorial process is not unnecessarily delayed.
The journal aims to maintain an efficient review process while recognising that careful scholarly assessment requires adequate time.
19. Reviewing Revised Manuscripts
When invited to review a revised manuscript, reviewers should focus on:
- whether the authors have adequately addressed the substantive concerns raised previously;
- whether requested corrections have been appropriately implemented;
- whether new changes introduce additional problems;
- whether the manuscript is now suitable for publication.
Reviewers should not introduce extensive new requirements unrelated to the previous review unless a new issue has become apparent.
20. Reviewer Anonymity
The journal operates a double-blind peer-review process.
Reviewers should not identify themselves in the reviewer report or communicate directly with the authors about the manuscript unless expressly authorised by the journal.
Reviewers should also avoid including information in their report that could unnecessarily reveal their identity.
21. Reviewer Recognition
The journal may maintain a List of Reviewers recognising individuals who have contributed to the peer-review process.
Inclusion on such a list does not indicate that a reviewer evaluated a particular manuscript.
Reviewer identities remain confidential in relation to individual manuscripts unless the journal expressly states otherwise.
22. Reviewer Misconduct
The journal takes inappropriate reviewer conduct seriously.
Examples may include:
- disclosure of confidential manuscripts;
- misuse of unpublished information;
- attempting to identify authors inappropriately;
- deliberately delaying a review;
- providing knowingly misleading or abusive comments;
- manipulating recommendations for personal advantage;
- requesting citations primarily to increase personal citation counts;
- using confidential manuscript material for personal or professional benefit;
- using generative AI to produce a substantive review in breach of the journal’s confidentiality requirements.
Where concerns arise, the journal may investigate the matter and take appropriate action.
23. Editorial Use of Reviewer Reports
Reviewer reports are advisory to the editorial team.
The journal may consider the quality, relevance, completeness, and consistency of reviewer reports when making an editorial decision.
The existence of two or more reviewer reports does not require the editor to follow a particular recommendation.
The editor may request an additional independent review where reviewer recommendations substantially conflict or where specialist expertise is required.
24. Contact
Questions concerning peer review should be directed to the editorial office:
Reviewers should use the confidential communication functions provided by the journal’s editorial system where available.
Related Policies
Reviewers should also consult:
Comments are closed.