Reviewer guidance
For Reviewers
Peer reviewers evaluate manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Death for validity, rigor and clarity, and advise the editors on whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence. This page sets out what the journal asks of reviewers, from the invitation to the final report.
- Single-blind by default
- Confidential review
Before you accept
Responding to an invitation
Expertise
Accept when the manuscript falls within your expertise, or tell the editor which parts you can assess.
Conflicts of interest
Decline, or consult the editor, if you have a competing interest such as recent collaboration with an author, a shared institution, a personal relationship or a financial interest in the work.
Availability
Each invitation states the date by which the report is requested. Accept when you can meet it, and tell the editorial office promptly if you need more time.
Reply
Accept or decline promptly. When declining, suggestions of independent alternative reviewers are welcome.
Confidentiality
Confidentiality, files and AI tools
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers do not share them, discuss them with others, or contact the authors, and consult a colleague only with the editor's permission. Manuscripts in this field may describe people in vulnerable circumstances; reviewers treat any personal detail in them with the same care.
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Assessment
What to assess
Questions apply where applicable to the study design and article type. A reviewer may assess only part of a manuscript, such as the qualitative analysis, if the editor is told.
| Aspect | Questions to consider |
|---|---|
| Relevance | Does the manuscript address death, dying, bereavement or end-of-life care within the journal's Aims and Scope, and is its contribution clear? |
| Design | Is the design appropriate to the question, whether quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, evidence synthesis, historical, legal or philosophical? |
| Methods and analysis | Are sampling, measures and analysis appropriate and described in enough detail to be evaluated, where applicable? |
| Results | Are the findings presented clearly and consistently with the data, tables and figures? |
| Interpretation | Are the conclusions proportionate to the evidence, with limitations and alternative explanations discussed? |
| Ethics and reporting | Are ethics approval and informed consent, or a waiver documented by the ethics committee, reported where applicable? Are participants who are dying, bereaved or affected by suicide described with appropriate safeguards? Is the relevant reporting guideline, such as CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, COREQ or CARE, followed where applicable, and does empirical research include a data-availability statement? |
| Presentation | Do the title and abstract reflect the content accurately, and are the writing, tables and figures clear and respectful in their language? |
Formats
Points of emphasis by article type
Expectations follow the format of the manuscript. Structure, hypotheses and statistical analysis are assessed where they apply.
| Article type | Emphasis |
|---|---|
| Original Research | The research question, design, analysis, and whether the conclusions follow from the results. |
| Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis | Protocol or registration where available, search strategy, study selection, appraisal, synthesis methods and PRISMA reporting. |
| Review | How the literature was identified and selected, balance of coverage, and whether the synthesis is supported by the sources. |
| Methods | Validity and usefulness of the method, comparison with existing approaches, and enough detail for others to apply it. |
| Short Communication | A focused finding reported with sufficient methods to judge it. |
| Case Report | Relevance for care, practice or policy, completeness of the account, consent, and CARE reporting where applicable. |
| Perspective or Commentary | Clarity and support of the argument, use of evidence, and relevance to current questions in the field. |
| Book Review | Accuracy of the account of the book, fairness of the assessment, and relevance to the journal's scope. |
| Letter | Pertinence to published work or a current issue, and accuracy of its claims. |
Writing the report
Structure of the report
Comments to authors are specific, constructive and courteous. Reviewers make a recommendation; the editor makes the decision.
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
- Summary. The manuscript's question, approach and main claims, in a few sentences.
- Overall assessment. Strengths of the work and whether the conclusions are supported.
- Major points. Issues of design, analysis or interpretation that affect the conclusions, numbered for reference.
- Minor points. Clarity, presentation, references and other corrections.
- Confidential comments to the editor. Concerns about ethics, overlap with other work or competing interests.
- Recommendation. Accept, minor revision, major revision or reject.
Reviewer panel
Joining as a reviewer
Researchers and practitioners with expertise in death studies, palliative care, bereavement or related fields are welcome to join the journal's reviewer panel. Write to the editorial office with your areas of expertise. Reviewing confers no advantage in the review of the reviewer's own submissions.