Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Guidelines and Information for Medicine® Reviewers

​​​​Submissions and Peer Review

Quality peer review plays an essential role in the decisions to accept and publish an article in Medicine®. All original material presented in Medicine® undergoes rigorous multi-factorial double-blinded peer-review by carefully selecting dedicated and knowledgeable individuals who are experts in their field.

Getting Started

Editorial Manager Classifications/ Submission Assignment 
When reviewer completes their registration in the Editorial Manager submission and review web site (, the system requires that personal classifications be selected to identify the reviewer's areas of expertise.

Similarly, during the initial submission process, an author is asked to provide article classifications from the same classification list.

More information on classifications and submission assignment can be found in the Reviewer Tutorial.

Accepting or declining invitations
Reviewer invitations are sent from the Editorial Manager submission system by email. To accept or decline invitations use the links in the email.

If you are able to review, please select the assignment within five (5) days. If we do not receive a reply within that timeframe we may assign another reviewer.

If you receive an invitation and cannot accept the review please select 'Decline to Review' as soon as possible so we can select another reviewer for the manuscript.  In the response field, please include the following, if possible:

  1. A reason for declining the review
  2. Suggested colleague(s) qualified to review this paper with contact information

Submitting a Review
All reviews on a manuscript must be entered into the Editorial Manager submission system. Reviews should not be sent to the editorial office, however, if you have a question regarding a review please contact us

We ask reviewers to try and complete a review within ten (10) days after accepting the review. Please notify the editorial office if you need more time or cannot complete the review.

Disclosures and Conflict of Interests
You should not accept a review if there is a potential conflict of interest on a paper. When submitting a review you should disclose if you have a conflict of interest. This could include any of the following:

  • Previous knowledge of the study
  • Collaboration with the corresponding or secondary authors
  • Potential to profit from the work financially

The unpublished manuscript is a privileged document and reviewers should hold each manuscript in strict confidence and not share information with any outside parties unless previously agreed upon.

Reviewers should not cite the work and refrain from using the information to advance their own research before publication.

Reviewers remain anonymous in the peer review process for Medicine® and in the publication of the article. There is an option to reveal your identity to the author in the reviewer form, however, this is optional and your name or review will not be published with the manuscript.

Assessing a Manuscript for Publication

Assessing a Manuscript
The goal of Medicine®'s review process is to establish an article's technical, scientific and ethical validity. Novelty and potential for impact are not to be considered when assessing a manuscript or providing an editorial recommendation.

Academic Editors are asked to seek review from at least 2 external reviewers on any given manuscript. Please keep in mind that Academic Editors make the final decision on a manuscript. Although the final decision may disagree with the decision of the reviewer, the comments and assessment were carefully taken into consideration.

Criteria for Acceptance
As mentioned above, Medicine® ensures that an article meets technical, scientific and ethical validity before publication. More information on Criteria for Acceptance.

Reviewers will be asked to respond to the following questions before submitting a review:
  1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and the data support the conclusion?
  2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
  3. Does the manuscript adhere to standards in this field for data availability?
  4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
  5. Comments to the Author
Reviewers should also keep in mind the following criteria while assessing a manuscript
  • The study and results are original research
  • The paper has performed experiments with the highest ethical standards
  • The paper has not been previously published in another journal
  • The paper adheres to the EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines

Writing a Review

Comments to Authors

A good review has two goals: the primary goal is to help the handling editor make a decision about the manuscript and the secondary goal is to help the author understand how to improve their work. Below are a few helpful tips to guide you through your assessment. Keep in mind that you are the authors ally and aim to promote effective and accurate scientific communication.
  • Be Constructive –Stating that a section needs work may not be helpful to the author, add specifics about what could be altered to improve the section or manuscript.
  • Be Concise - While you should add detail to each comment, try to be clear about what you are looking for on that given theme
  • Be Polite and Conversational – The authors are looking for helpful suggestions to improve their work, please be polite and refrain from negative comments, as it is more helpful to suggest improvements
  • Identify Some Strengths – It is important to let the author know what should not be changed as well, this way they save time in the revision process

Never include comments regarding your editorial suggestion in this section and do not discuss comments with the author outside of your submission in Editorial Manager.

Comments to Editor

Reviewers have the option to send comments to the Editor using the "Confidential Comments to the Editor" field when reviewing a manuscript. These comments are optional and are to be used, but not limited to, if you have any concerns about either the manuscript or your suitability to review that you wish to convey to the Editor in confidence.

Decisions on a Manuscript


After an author submits a revision, the Academic Editor will often ask the original reviewer(s) to evaluate the author's revised submission. If a reviewer asks for revisions, we expect the original reviewers to be available to assess their required revisions.

Final Decision

The final decision on a manuscript is made by the Academic Editor. The Academic Editor will use reviewers' comments and decisions, the criteria for acceptance, and their own editorial assessment of a paper to make their final decision.

Publons Reviewer Recognition 

Medicine® is proud to be partnered with Publons to recognise our expert peer reviewers and raise the status of peer review. 

Publons is a free service for researchers to effortlessly track, verify and showcase their previously hidden reviewing and editorial contributions across all the world's journals, without compromising reviewer anonymity or infringing upon journal review models.

With a Publons account, researchers have access to verified evidence of their peer review and editorial contributions for inclusion in their CV, bio, and funding and promotion applications.

To create a profile or find out more information visit

CME for Reviewers

Wolters Kluwer is proud to announce CME for Medicine® Reviewers. When a peer review is completed and the review is available to you in Editorial Manager, Academic Editors will rate the review on a scale of 1 – 100. For reviewers seeking credit who have earned a score of 70 or above, the Wolters Kluwer CE Department will e-mail a CE certificate to the reviewer.  In accordance with provider guidelines, physicians (MDs and DOs) will earn 3 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™ credits.

The criteria for earning a score of 70 or above is a judgment call on each individual academic editor. If you score the review at less than 70, the editorial office will inform the reviewer of the decision.

For more information please see the CME for Reviewers FAQ.

Tutorial for Reviews

For further information on Editorial Manager please see our Reviewer Tutorial provided by Aries Systems and Editorial Manager. You can find more Medicine® FAQ's on the homepage or by visiting the Medicine® FAQ page directly.

If you need additional assistance or help contact the Editorial Office at

Requesting to be a Reviewer for Medicine®

Become a Reviewer for Medicine®
If you are interested in becoming a reviewer for Medicine® please submit your most recent CV from an institutional email address to

To recommend a reviewer for Medicine® please complete the Recommend a Reviewer form and submit