Peer Review Form

The Digital Health & Telemonitoring Advances uses peer review to support the scholarly quality, methodological rigor, ethical integrity, clinical relevance, transparency, and reliability of manuscripts considered for publication. Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts objectively, constructively, confidentially, and within the limits of their subject or methodological expertise.

The purpose of the review is to assist the editorial team in making an informed publication decision and, where revision is appropriate, to provide authors with clear and academically useful recommendations for improving their manuscript.

Reviewers should assess the scientific and scholarly merits of the work rather than the authors' identity, institutional affiliation, nationality, professional status, or other characteristics unrelated to the manuscript.

Reviewer Information

Manuscript Title: ______________________________________________

Manuscript ID: _________________________________________________

Article Type: ___________________________________________________

Reviewer Name: _________________________________________________

Institution/Affiliation: __________________________________________

Area of Expertise: ______________________________________________

Date of Review: _________________________________________________

Reviewer identity and review-related information are treated as confidential in accordance with the journal's applicable peer-review and privacy policies.

1. Reviewer Declaration

Before completing the review, please confirm the following:

  • I have appropriate subject, clinical, technical, or methodological expertise to evaluate this manuscript.

  • I have no conflict of interest that would compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, my impartiality.

  • I will maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and the review process.

  • I will not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, academic, commercial, financial, or competitive advantage.

  • I will provide an objective, evidence-based, constructive, and professionally written assessment.

  • I will notify the editor if I identify a potential concern involving research ethics, plagiarism, authorship, data integrity, patient privacy, conflicts of interest, or other publication-integrity issues.

  • I will not upload the confidential manuscript or substantial unpublished manuscript content into unauthorized generative AI or external automated systems.

Conflict of Interest, if any:

2. Evaluation Scale

Please use the following scale where applicable:

5 – Excellent
4 – Very Good
3 – Satisfactory
2 – Major Improvement Required
1 – Unsatisfactory
N/A – Not Applicable

Evaluation Criterion 5 4 3 2 1 N/A
Relevance to the journal's aims and scope ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Importance of the research problem ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Originality and scholarly contribution ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Clarity of objectives or research questions ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Quality of literature engagement ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Appropriateness of research design ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Methodological rigor ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Quality of statistical or analytical methods ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Transparency of data and methods ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Reliability of results ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Quality of discussion and interpretation ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Clinical or practical relevance ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Ethical and privacy safeguards ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Quality of tables and visual presentation ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Accuracy and relevance of references ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Academic writing and organization ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Overall suitability for publication ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

3. Title

Please assess whether the title is concise, informative, scientifically appropriate, and representative of the principal content of the manuscript.

The title should not exaggerate clinical effectiveness, technological performance, generalizability, safety, diagnostic capability, or health outcomes beyond the evidence presented.

Reviewer Comments:

4. Abstract

Please evaluate whether the abstract provides an accurate and balanced summary of the manuscript.

For research articles, the abstract should ordinarily communicate the research problem, objective, methodology, principal findings, and main conclusion.

Please consider whether:

  • the abstract reflects the full manuscript accurately;

  • numerical findings are reported consistently;

  • conclusions are supported by the reported evidence;

  • unsupported promotional or clinical claims are avoided; and

  • important limitations are not concealed.

Reviewer Comments:

5. Introduction and Research Context

Please evaluate whether the introduction establishes a clear scholarly and practical context for the study.

The manuscript should explain why the research problem is relevant to digital health, telemedicine, telemonitoring, remote patient monitoring, health informatics, connected healthcare, digital therapeutics, mobile health, wearable health technologies, artificial intelligence in healthcare, or another area within the journal's scope.

Please consider whether the introduction:

  • identifies a meaningful research problem;

  • provides adequate background;

  • engages with relevant literature;

  • establishes the significance of the study; and

  • leads logically to the stated objectives or research questions.

Reviewer Comments:

6. Literature Review and Research Gap

Please assess whether the manuscript engages critically with relevant and credible scholarly literature.

The literature review should identify what is already known, what remains uncertain, and how the present study contributes to the field.

Please consider whether the authors:

  • synthesize rather than merely list previous studies;

  • identify relevant methodological or evidence limitations;

  • distinguish established findings from emerging claims;

  • adequately address conflicting evidence where applicable; and

  • define a clear research gap or unresolved problem.

Reviewer Comments:

7. Research Objectives, Questions, or Hypotheses

Please evaluate whether the research objectives, questions, or hypotheses are clearly stated, academically justified, and aligned with the study design.

The manuscript should avoid introducing objectives retrospectively in a manner that appears driven solely by observed results.

Reviewer Comments:

8. Research Design and Methodology

Please assess whether the research design is appropriate for the research question and described with sufficient transparency.

Where applicable, please consider:

  • study design;

  • research setting;

  • participant population;

  • eligibility criteria;

  • sampling strategy;

  • sample size;

  • recruitment procedures;

  • intervention or monitoring procedures;

  • comparison groups;

  • data sources;

  • measurement instruments;

  • telemonitoring technology;

  • digital platform or application used;

  • clinical or behavioral outcome measures;

  • statistical methods;

  • qualitative analytical methods;

  • computational methods;

  • validation procedures;

  • reliability measures;

  • software or analytical tools; and

  • methodological limitations.

The methodology should provide sufficient information to permit meaningful scholarly assessment and, where reasonably possible, reproducibility.

Reviewer Comments:

9. Digital Health and Telemonitoring Technology

For manuscripts evaluating a digital health technology, telemonitoring platform, remote monitoring system, mobile application, wearable device, connected sensor, or digital intervention, please assess whether the technology is described adequately.

Relevant information may include:

  • intended clinical or healthcare purpose;

  • target population;

  • hardware or software components;

  • data collection frequency;

  • transmission procedures;

  • alert mechanisms;

  • interoperability;

  • user interface;

  • clinician involvement;

  • patient involvement;

  • technical validation;

  • device or platform limitations;

  • implementation setting; and

  • relevant safety considerations.

Claims concerning effectiveness, accuracy, reliability, usability, or clinical value should be supported by appropriate evidence.

Reviewer Comments:

10. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

If the manuscript involves artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, predictive analytics, natural language processing, computer vision, or another computational model, please assess the transparency and appropriateness of the reporting.

Where relevant, consider whether the manuscript adequately describes:

  • model architecture or algorithm;

  • training data;

  • validation data;

  • test data;

  • data preprocessing;

  • feature selection;

  • outcome definition;

  • model-performance measures;

  • internal or external validation;

  • comparison with appropriate baselines;

  • risk of overfitting;

  • calibration;

  • generalizability;

  • explainability;

  • algorithmic bias;

  • fairness;

  • missing-data handling; and

  • limitations.

Performance claims should not be generalized beyond the population, dataset, or setting evaluated without adequate justification.

Reviewer Comments:

11. Statistical Analysis

Where statistical analysis is used, please evaluate whether the selected methods are appropriate and reported sufficiently.

Consider whether:

  • statistical tests match the research design;

  • assumptions are addressed where relevant;

  • sample size is adequate or appropriately justified;

  • effect estimates are reported where appropriate;

  • measures of uncertainty are provided;

  • confidence intervals are used where relevant;

  • significance thresholds are specified;

  • multiple comparisons are appropriately considered;

  • missing data are addressed;

  • subgroup analyses are justified; and

  • conclusions are proportionate to the statistical evidence.

Statistical significance should not be treated automatically as evidence of clinical or practical importance.

Reviewer Comments:

12. Results

Please evaluate whether the results are presented clearly, accurately, and consistently with the methodology.

Please consider whether:

  • findings correspond to the stated objectives;

  • numerical results are internally consistent;

  • tables and graphs accurately represent the data;

  • favorable and unfavorable findings are reported appropriately;

  • exploratory findings are distinguished from prespecified analyses where relevant;

  • results are separated adequately from interpretation; and

  • unsupported conclusions are avoided.

Reviewer Comments:

13. Discussion

Please assess whether the discussion provides a balanced and academically meaningful interpretation of the results.

The discussion should ordinarily:

  • interpret the principal findings;

  • compare findings with previous research;

  • explain possible similarities or differences;

  • address clinical, technological, organizational, or policy implications where appropriate;

  • consider alternative explanations;

  • acknowledge limitations;

  • avoid overgeneralization; and

  • distinguish evidence from speculation.

Reviewer Comments:

14. Clinical and Healthcare Relevance

Where the manuscript makes claims concerning patient care, diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, prevention, prognosis, healthcare delivery, or clinical decision-making, please assess whether those claims are adequately supported.

Please consider:

  • clinical significance;

  • patient population;

  • healthcare context;

  • benefit-risk balance;

  • implementation feasibility;

  • potential unintended consequences;

  • clinician oversight;

  • patient safety;

  • accessibility;

  • equity; and

  • generalizability.

The manuscript should not imply clinical effectiveness or safety where the study design does not provide sufficient evidence.

Reviewer Comments:

15. Human Participants and Research Ethics

For research involving human participants, patient information, surveys, interviews, health records, physiological monitoring, or other ethically regulated activities, please assess whether appropriate ethical information is reported.

Where applicable, verify whether the manuscript identifies:

  • ethics committee or institutional review approval;

  • approval/reference number where available;

  • informed consent procedures;

  • participant privacy protections;

  • confidentiality safeguards; and

  • additional protections for vulnerable populations.

Is the ethical information adequate?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Not Applicable

  • Clarification Required

Reviewer Comments:

16. Privacy, Confidentiality, and Data Protection

Digital health and telemonitoring research may involve sensitive personal and health-related information.

Please assess whether the study appropriately addresses, where relevant:

  • collection of personal information;

  • transmission of health data;

  • storage and access controls;

  • de-identification or anonymization;

  • confidentiality;

  • data minimization;

  • consent for data use;

  • secondary data use;

  • data-sharing restrictions; and

  • risk of re-identification.

Reviewers should flag any substantial privacy concern that may affect the ethical acceptability or publication of the research.

Reviewer Comments:

17. Cybersecurity and Technology-Related Risk

Where relevant to the research, please assess whether the manuscript appropriately considers cybersecurity, system reliability, unauthorized access, data breaches, device failure, communication interruption, or other technology-related risks.

This consideration is particularly important where the digital system could influence clinical decisions or patient management.

Reviewer Comments:

18. Health Equity, Accessibility, and Digital Inclusion

Where applicable, please consider whether the manuscript adequately addresses factors that may affect equitable use of digital health technologies.

Relevant considerations may include:

  • digital literacy;

  • disability and accessibility;

  • socioeconomic barriers;

  • language;

  • internet connectivity;

  • device availability;

  • geographic disparities;

  • age-related barriers;

  • gender-related differences;

  • rural or underserved populations; and

  • potential algorithmic or technological bias.

The manuscript should avoid assuming universal access to digital technologies where such access has not been demonstrated.

Reviewer Comments:

19. Research Data and Data Availability

Please evaluate whether the manuscript provides sufficient transparency concerning the data supporting the research.

Where applicable, consider whether:

  • data sources are identified;

  • data collection is adequately described;

  • data ownership is clear;

  • access restrictions are explained;

  • publicly available datasets are cited;

  • a Data Availability Statement is included where appropriate; and

  • claims concerning data accessibility are credible and consistent with the manuscript.

Reviewer Comments:

20. Results Involving AI-Generated, Synthetic, or Simulated Data

Where synthetic, simulated, or artificially generated data are used, the manuscript should disclose this clearly.

Please assess whether:

  • the data are accurately characterized;

  • generation procedures are described;

  • assumptions are reported;

  • simulated findings are not presented as real-world clinical observations;

  • limitations are acknowledged; and

  • conclusions remain proportionate to the nature of the evidence.

Reviewer Comments:

21. Tables, Graphs, Figures, and Supplementary Material

Please evaluate whether visual and supplementary materials are necessary, accurate, legible, and appropriately presented.

Please consider whether:

  • tables and figures are numbered consistently;

  • captions are informative;

  • axes and units are clear;

  • legends are understandable;

  • data are not unnecessarily duplicated;

  • images appear free from inappropriate manipulation;

  • external material is properly attributed; and

  • supplementary files genuinely support the manuscript.

Reviewer Comments:

22. References

Please assess whether references are relevant, accurate, appropriately balanced, and sufficient to support the manuscript's scholarly context.

Reviewers should not request citations for the primary purpose of increasing citations to themselves, their institution, a particular author, or a particular journal.

Please indicate whether any important literature has been omitted for legitimate scholarly reasons.

Reviewer Comments:

23. Academic Writing and Presentation

Please assess the overall clarity, organization, coherence, and professional academic presentation of the manuscript.

Consider:

  • logical flow;

  • clarity of argument;

  • terminology;

  • unnecessary repetition;

  • consistency;

  • readability;

  • appropriate use of abbreviations;

  • technical accuracy; and

  • avoidance of promotional or exaggerated claims.

Reviewer Comments:

24. Research and Publication Integrity

Please indicate whether you identified any concern involving:

  • plagiarism;

  • substantial unattributed textual overlap;

  • fabricated or falsified data;

  • manipulated images;

  • duplicate or redundant publication;

  • inappropriate authorship;

  • citation manipulation;

  • undisclosed competing interests;

  • misleading reporting;

  • ethics or consent irregularities;

  • inaccurate data-availability claims;

  • peer-review manipulation; or

  • other potential research misconduct.

Integrity Concern Identified:

  • No

  • Yes

  • Uncertain — Further Editorial Assessment Recommended

If Yes or Uncertain, please provide details in the confidential comments to the editor rather than making unsupported allegations in comments intended for the authors.

25. Major Strengths

Please identify the principal strengths of the manuscript.

26. Major Issues Requiring Revision

Please identify the principal scientific, methodological, ethical, analytical, or reporting issues that should be addressed.

27. Minor Comments

Please provide additional recommendations concerning terminology, presentation, references, formatting, tables, clarity, or other matters.

28. Comments to the Authors

Please provide constructive comments suitable for communication to the authors.

Comments should explain the academic basis for recommended revisions and should not contain confidential remarks or information that could unnecessarily disclose the reviewer's identity.

29. Confidential Comments to the Editor

This section is intended for the editorial team and will not ordinarily be shared with the authors.

Please use this section to communicate concerns relating to:

  • research integrity;

  • patient safety;

  • confidentiality;

  • ethics approval;

  • conflicts of interest;

  • plagiarism;

  • authorship;

  • data reliability;

  • clinical claims;

  • potential legal or privacy issues; or

  • other matters requiring confidential editorial consideration.

30. Final Recommendation

Please select one recommendation:

  • Accept
    The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form or requires only negligible editorial corrections.

  • Minor Revision
    The manuscript is potentially suitable for publication after limited revisions that do not fundamentally alter the research design or principal findings.

  • Major Revision
    Substantial scientific, methodological, analytical, ethical, or presentation issues require revision before the manuscript can be reconsidered.

  • Reject
    The manuscript contains fundamental problems that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision, does not provide sufficient scholarly contribution, or is unsuitable for the journal.

Reason for Recommendation

31. Reviewer Confidence

How confident are you in your assessment of this manuscript?

  • Very High

  • High

  • Moderate

  • Limited

If your confidence is limited in a particular area, please indicate whether additional specialist review may be useful.

32. Reviewer Confirmation

By submitting this review, I confirm that I have evaluated the manuscript independently, confidentially, and in good faith. I understand that my recommendation is advisory and that the final editorial decision rests with the journal's authorized editorial leadership after consideration of the manuscript, reviewer reports, applicable ethical requirements, and other relevant scholarly considerations.

Reviewer Name/Confirmation: ___________________________________

Date: _________________________________________________________

Editorial Note

Reviewer recommendations assist editorial decision-making but do not independently determine acceptance or rejection. The journal retains responsibility for the final editorial decision and may seek additional review where reports are conflicting, specialized expertise is required, or substantial ethical or methodological questions remain unresolved.