Guidelines for Reviewers

Guidelines

1. 01

   Responding to an invitation

   Accept an invitation only if the manuscript falls within your expertise, you have no conflict of interest and you can return the report by the agreed date. Declare any competing interest, such as a recent collaboration or a commercial tie to the products studied, and reply promptly so that the editor can invite someone else if you decline.

2. 02

   Confidentiality, files and AI tools

   The manuscript and the review are confidential. After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.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.

   Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.

3. 03

   What to assess

   • Fit with the journal's scope and the stated article type.
   • Originality and the significance of the question for carbohydrate science.
   • Soundness of the design, methods and analysis, including characterization of materials and the controls used.
   • Whether the data support the conclusions, and whether the data-availability statement is adequate.
   • Ethics approval, consent and trial registration where they apply.
   • Clarity of presentation, figures, tables and references.
4. 04

   Points of emphasis by article type

   For Methods, check that the procedure is described in enough detail to be repeated and that it is validated. For Data Notes, check the dataset and its documentation. For Review Articles and Systematic Reviews, check how the literature was identified and whether the synthesis is balanced. For Commentaries and Letters, check that claims are supported by cited evidence.

5. 05

   Structure of the report

   Begin with a short summary of the work and your overall assessment. Separate major concerns, which affect the conclusions, from minor points. Give specific, constructive comments the authors can act on, and keep confidential remarks to the editor separate from comments to the authors. Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.

6. 06

   Joining as a reviewer

   Researchers who would like to review for JCH may write to info@openaccesspub.org with their area of expertise and ORCID iD.