1. Introduction

Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing, ensuring that research published in ENT Discovery (this journal) is rigorous, credible, and impactful. We greatly appreciate the expertise, time, and commitment reviewers contribute, and we view the review process as a constructive dialogue aimed at improving the scientific quality of manuscripts. Reviewers are integral to the journal’s success, and we strive to ensure a fair, timely, and transparent process.

Review invitations are sent via ScholarOne (https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/entdiscovery), the journal’s online submission system. Each invitation includes the manuscript title, abstract, and the requested review deadline. Once an invitation is accepted, reviewers can access the full manuscript for evaluation. The Editorial Office is always available to provide clarification or assistance as needed.

 

2. Scope and Purpose of Peer Review

The primary objective of peer review is to provide an expert, unbiased evaluation of the manuscript’s validity, originality, and significance. A thorough and constructive review helps editors make informed decisions and assists authors in improving their work.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the following:

l Conceptual novelty and significance: Does the manuscript contribute new, valuable insights to the field of journal?

l Scientific rigor: Are the methods, analyses, and data interpretation sound and well-executed?

l Clarity, organization, and transparency: Is the manuscript well-written and easy to follow, with all relevant data and results clearly presented?

l Validity and robustness of conclusions: Are the conclusions supported by the data and appropriate statistical analysis?

l Relevance to the readership: Does the manuscript align with the scope and interests of the journal’s audience?

The review should be constructive, evidence-based, and written in a professional tone.

 

3. Components of a High-Quality Review

Reviewers are encouraged to structure their reports as follows:

a) Summary of the Manuscript:

Provide a neutral, brief summary of the study’s aims, methods, and key findings. This demonstrates understanding and provides context for your evaluation.

b) Overall Recommendation:

Provide a clear recommendation for the manuscript (e.g., accept, minor revision, major revision, reject). While editorial decisions are ultimately made by the editors, your recommendation will help guide that process.

c) Detailed Assessment:

l Conceptual novelty and significance: Does the work bring new understanding to biology or surgery of this field?

l Technical rigor: Is the experimental design robust, and are the statistical methods and analyses sound?

l Quality of figures, tables, and supplementary materials: Are they clear, high-quality, and well-integrated into the manuscript?

l Appropriateness of references: Are key studies cited, and is the manuscript positioned within the existing literature?

l Strengths and weaknesses: Provide specific examples of strengths and weaknesses in the study.

l Alternative interpretations: Are there other possible explanations or hypotheses for the findings?

l Target audience: Does the manuscript fit the journal’s scope and is it of interest to the journal’s readership?

d) Constructive Suggestions:

Offer specific and actionable suggestions for improvement, including clarifications, methodological improvements, or additional discussions that would strengthen the manuscript.

 

4. Confidential Comments to the Editors

Reviewers may include confidential comments intended only for the editors. These may address:

l Ethical concerns (e.g., potential data manipulation, plagiarism, inappropriate research conduct)

l Concerns about novelty, significance, or suitability for publication in this journal

l Any potential sensitivities or issues requiring editorial consideration

l A concise summary of the main issues raised in the reviewer-directed comments

However, any issue that affects the reviewer’s overall recommendation must also appear in the comments to the authors, not just in confidential comments to the editors.

 

5. Professional Conduct & Ethical Responsibilities

Reviews should be objective, respectful, and free of personal criticism. While critical evaluations are welcome, dismissive or inflammatory language is not acceptable. The goal is to guide authors toward improving their work, not to disparage it.

Reviewers are responsible for helping maintain the integrity of the publication process and should report:

l Plagiarism: Any possible instances of plagiarism, including text or figure duplication.

l Previously published or simultaneously submitted material: Manuscripts that overlap with previously published work or other manuscripts under review.

l Suspicious data patterns: Any inconsistencies, manipulations, or anomalies in the data, images, or statistical analyses.

l Ethical issues: Any concerns regarding the ethical treatment of human or animal participants.

l Trial registration and informed consent: Issues related to registration or consent should be reported.

The editorial team will investigate all concerns according to the COPE guidelines (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts).

 

6. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality, including:

l Collaborations: Ongoing or recent collaborations with the authors

l Competition: Direct competition or overlapping research

l Personal relationships: Personal relationships that could bias judgement

l Financial interests: Any financial ties related to the manuscript’s subject matter

If a conflict of interest is present or suspected, reviewers should either decline the invitation or consult the editor for guidance. If a conflict becomes apparent only after viewing the manuscript, the reviewer must immediately notify the editor.

 

7. Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers must:

l Not share, distribute, or discuss the manuscript with others.

l Not use unpublished data or ideas for personal research or financial gain.

l Not present any information from the manuscript at meetings or seminars.

l Not involve colleagues or trainees in the review without prior permission from the editor.

l Maintain confidentiality indefinitely unless the work becomes publicly available after publication.

Reviewers should not reveal their identity to the authors unless they choose to sign their review.

 

8. Reviewing Revised Manuscripts

For consistency and fairness, reviewers who evaluate an initial submission are usually invited to assess revised versions. Reviewers should focus on whether the authors have adequately addressed previous comments and made improvements to the manuscript. This journal aims to minimize unnecessary review cycles and may handle minor revisions editorially when appropriate.

 

9. Reviewer Conduct and Use of Privileged Information

Reviewers must not:

l Delay publication of competing work.

l Use manuscript data to shape their own research direction prematurely.

l Make financial decisions based on unpublished findings.

l Disseminate or store the manuscript on personal devices without proper security measures.

Information from publicly available abstracts or conference presentations is not considered confidential.

 

10. Contacting the Editorial Office

Reviewers are encouraged to contact the Editorial Office for any of the following:

l Clarification regarding the review scope or process

l Requests for extended deadlines

l Suspected ethical issues or conflicts of interest

l Technical issues with the submission system

The Editorial Office is committed to providing support to reviewers throughout the entire review process.