For Reviewers
Peer reviewers evaluate manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Implementation Science 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.
- Volume 1, 2026
- Open access · CC BY 4.0
- Published by Open Access Pub
Responding to an invitation
Expertise
Accept when the manuscript falls within your expertise, or tell the editor which parts you can assess, such as the trial design, the qualitative analysis or the implementation context.
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, a role in the program evaluated, 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, 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.
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After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.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.
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 statistical analysis, if the editor is told.
| Aspect | Questions to consider |
|---|---|
| Relevance | Does the manuscript address how evidence is put into practice, within the journal's Aims and Scope, and is its contribution clear? |
| Study design | Is the design appropriate to the question, for example a hybrid effectiveness–implementation, trial, quasi-experimental, qualitative, mixed-methods, economic or evidence-synthesis design? |
| Implementation approach | Are the intervention, the implementation strategies, the setting and any framework or theory described clearly enough to be understood and repeated, and are implementation outcomes reported separately from effectiveness outcomes? |
| Methods and analysis | Are sampling, measures and statistical or qualitative 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, context and alternative explanations discussed? |
| Ethics and reporting | Are ethics approval and informed consent, or a documented waiver, reported where applicable? Is the relevant reporting guideline, such as StaRI, TIDieR, SQUIRE, CONSORT, STROBE or PRISMA, 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? |
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. |
| Review | Protocol or registration where available, search strategy, study selection, quality assessment, synthesis methods and PRISMA reporting. |
| Study Protocol | Rationale, soundness and feasibility of the design, clarity of outcomes and analysis plan, and ethics and registration. |
| Methods Article | Validity and usefulness of the method, comparison with existing approaches, and enough detail for others to apply it. |
| Implementation Case Study | Clarity of the context and approach, how information about implementation was gathered, honest account of adaptations and barriers, and whether the lessons follow from the account. |
| Short Communication | A focused finding reported with sufficient methods to judge it. |
| Commentary | Clarity and support of the argument, use of evidence, and relevance to current implementation questions. |
| Letter | Pertinence to published work or a current issue, and accuracy of its claims. |
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.
Joining as a reviewer
Researchers and practitioners with expertise in implementation science, health services research or related fields are welcome to join the journal's reviewer panel. Write to the editorial office at info@openaccesspub.org with your areas of expertise.
Reviewers who would like their contribution acknowledged, for example for institutional records, may contact the editorial office. Reviewing confers no advantage in the review of the reviewer's own submissions.