Ochsner Journal peer review is double-blind. Reviewers cannot see the names or affiliations of authors. Authors cannot see the names or affiliations of reviewers.
Ochsner Journal peer review policy is here. Because of the confidentiality implications, reviewers must request permission from the editorial office prior to using artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology to facilitate their review.
Because we do not want to waste reviewers’ time, we ask that you focus on three primary evaluation questions:
- Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication?
- Does it add to the canon of knowledge?
- Is it clinically/administratively relevant?
If you answer these primary evaluation questions affirmatively, please use the rubric below to identify omissions and areas for improvement in the article.
Once you have evaluated the submission, you will be asked to make a recommendation: Accept, Major Revision, Minor Revision, Reject. If you wish, you will have the opportunity to review the authors’ revision.
The cornerstone of scholarly activity is rigorous peer review, and Ochsner Journal takes this process seriously. To validate your review, please
- Include comments to support/explain your recommendation.
- Agree to review the authors’ revision to ensure that your comments and suggestions were addressed.
- If the manuscript is so poorly written that it warrants rejection, please note that in your review. If you don’t understand a sentence, please note that in your review. However, please do not identify grammar and punctuation errors by line. The experienced copyeditors on the Journal staff will correct these mistakes.
- Treat any manuscript assigned to you for review as a confidential document. Do not share or discuss it with others. Reviewers’ identities are never shared with the author(s).
We understand that peer review is a voluntary contribution to the integrity of the literature and we are extremely grateful for our reviewers’ time and expertise.
| Original Research |
Review/ |
Case Report | Other (Editorial, Historical Article, Letter to the Editor) |
|
Hypothesis is clearly stated. Relevant research is summarized to provide context. Methods are sufficiently detailed. Appropriate statistical methods are used. IRB approval or exemption is stated. Results are presented in logical sequence. Graphics and tables are meaningful and complement the text. Study limitations are identified. Conclusion is reasonable and supported by statistics. Clinical relevance is stated in the conclusion. |
Overview of the literature is adequate to provide a useful addition to the canon. Submission is well organized. Tables present meaningful summaries and complement the text. Majority of references are recently published articles. Clinical relevance is clearly stated. |
Introduction provides adequate context. Case presentation includes all information necessary to understand the specific case. Treatment and outcome are adequately discussed. Case is novel and a useful addition to the literature. Clinical relevance is clearly stated. |
Submission is appropriate for the Ochsner Journal. Text is engaging and interesting. Submission is well organized. |
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) acknowledges the importance of peer review but points out that reviewers may not receive adequate guidance about or may be unaware of their ethical responsibilities. To help bridge that divide, COPE has developed “Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers,” a document that advocates for agreeing to peer review as a professional responsibility and addresses issues such as disclosure of competing interests, appropriateness of comments and language, and confidentiality. In an additional effort to provide transparent policies for peer review, we endorse and link to the COPE guidelines for the benefit of our peer reviewers.