Information for Reviewers

How to submit your review

Submit your review via the online Editorial Manager. The “Action Links” button that allows you to download the manuscript also has a link for submitting your review. You may partially fill out your review, save it and return to it. When your review is complete, you must click on the “Submit” button to give us access to it. We cannot see or process your review until this it is formally submitted.

Involving graduate students or postdocs

You may involve a graduate student or a postdoc in your lab to help out with a review. Such assistance is bound to the same ethics, conflict of interest, and confidentiality considerations that apply to all invited reviewers. Please indicate that you received help, and the name and email of the assisting reviewer, in the comments to the editor section of your review when you submit it.

JARO content

In evaluating the manuscript, you may consider whether its content is suitable for JARO. JARO publishes research findings from disciplines related to otolaryngology and communications sciences, with an emphasis on auditory and vestibular science. JARO welcomes submissions describing experimental research that investigates the mechanisms underlying problems of basic and/or clinical significance. Clinical case studies and pharmaceutical screens are not likely to be published unless they reveal underlying mechanisms. Methods papers are not encouraged unless they include significant new findings as well.

Publishing recommendation

Indicate your publishing recommendation by selecting the appropriate recommendation from the drop-down box. Do not put “accept” or “reject” or “revisions” in your review text. We do not edit your comments to the authors, so indicating your recommendations in the review can be confusing to the authors if the decision is different.

Rating the manuscript

Rate the manuscript from 1 to 5, with 1 being the best possible score.

Confidential Comments to Editor

Use this section only to indicate potential conflicts of interest, human or animal subject welfare, and misconduct; please do not make any references to the paper’s merit in this box. In this way, authors have access to the full critique upon which manuscript decisions are made.

Comments to Author

We suggest that you organize your comments to the authors as: 1) General comments; 2) Specific recommendations for revision: a) Major ; b) Minor. Please do not directly allude to the acceptability of the paper for publication. Note that we do not reveal your name to the authors, although you are free to do so in the body of your review.

Publication Ethics: Plagiarism (text or figures), data fabrication, undeclared Conflict of Interest.

If you, as a reviewer, have questions that arise regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, undeclared conflict of interest, or other ethical issues, please raise these points with both the Associate Editor and the Editor-in-Chief directly, and not in your review. Be specific in expressing your concerns. We will investigate the issues that you raise, and follow up as appropriate. Our publisher, Springer, has a set of guidelines on these topics that you should read to help guide how to express your concerns, and JARO is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). As of January 1, 2019, all new manuscripts are passed through iThenticate, which identifies copied passages and recycled text. The results from iThenticate are evaluated editorially, and may be grounds for rejection without review, or authors may receive a request for modification of the manuscript prior to entering it into review.

Honest errors (incorrect calculations in data analysis, apparent misclassification of subjects, etc.) should be handled through the review process.

Neurosciences Peer Review Consortium (NPRC)

JARO has joined the NPRC, an alliance of neuroscience journals that have agreed to share manuscript reviews at the author’s request. The NPRC has been formed to expedite the review process, to speed the publication of research reports, and to reduce the overall burden on peer reviewers. NPRC provides the handshaking between journals that allow a formal transfer of reviews from one journal to another. For example, if a journal deems a manuscript to be too “specialized” for it’s readership, but otherwise has few faults with the work, the authors may choose to submit the manuscript to JARO (or another journal), along with the reviews. Thus, the manuscript has essentially been through the first round of review, and processing should be somewhat faster at the new journal. As a reviewer, you may see requests to review such manuscripts, and you may have reviewed them for another journal. With permission, reviewer names are forwarded, and we try to engage those reviewers with the resubmission to streamline the review process.

Likewise, if JARO does not accept the manuscript for publication, the authors may ask for the reviews to be forwarded to another journal in the consortium to expedite reviewing. Please let us know if you do not wish to allow your review to be forwarded in that case.

Reviewer names are never forwarded to authors, by JARO or any other journal in the consortium. We strongly recommend, however, that you allow your name to go forward to editors of other journals, or it will be of little value. Please let us know when you accept the review if you prefer to not have your name forwarded to editors along with your review.