Reviewer Guidelines

The Digital Health & Telemonitoring Advances relies on independent peer review to support the scholarly quality, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, clarity, and relevance of manuscripts considered for publication. Reviewers make an important contribution to the editorial process by providing expert, objective, constructive, and confidential assessments that assist editors in reaching informed publication decisions.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts fairly and professionally, within the limits of their expertise, and without discrimination or inappropriate personal, institutional, financial, or professional influence. Reviewer recommendations are advisory; final editorial responsibility remains with the journal’s authorized editorial leadership.

These guidelines should be read together with the journal’s Peer Review Policy, Publication Ethics Policy, Conflict of Interest Policy, Research Misconduct Policy, Plagiarism Policy, AI Usage Policy, Research Data Sharing Policy, Data Availability Policy, and other applicable editorial policies.

1. Role of the Reviewer

The primary role of a reviewer is to provide an independent scholarly assessment of a manuscript.

A reviewer should help the editor determine whether the submission:

falls within the journal’s aims and scope;
addresses a relevant scholarly problem;
presents an identifiable contribution to knowledge;
uses an appropriate research design;
reports methods transparently;
presents results accurately;
supports conclusions with appropriate evidence;
complies with relevant ethical requirements;
acknowledges important limitations; and
is suitable for publication in its current or revised form.

Reviewers should also provide constructive comments that can help authors improve the scholarly quality and presentation of their work.

2. Acceptance of a Review Invitation

A reviewer should accept an invitation only when reasonably confident that they possess sufficient subject, clinical, methodological, statistical, technological, ethical, or interdisciplinary expertise to evaluate the manuscript appropriately.

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should consider:

whether the subject falls within their expertise;
whether they can provide a meaningful assessment;
whether sufficient time is available to complete the review;
whether a conflict of interest exists;
whether they have previously reviewed substantially the same manuscript elsewhere; and
whether any other circumstance could compromise independent judgment.

A reviewer should decline the invitation when unable to provide an appropriately informed, impartial, or timely review.

3. Reviewer Expertise

Reviewers are not expected to be specialists in every aspect of a multidisciplinary manuscript.

Where a reviewer is qualified to assess only particular components of a submission, this should be communicated to the editor.

For example, a reviewer may be well qualified to evaluate:

clinical methodology;
telemedicine implementation;
remote monitoring technologies;
health informatics;
statistical analysis;
artificial intelligence applications;
digital health interventions;
wearable technologies;
patient-reported outcomes;
cybersecurity;
healthcare policy;
health economics; or
research ethics.

Reviewers should not provide authoritative judgments on areas substantially outside their expertise without clearly identifying the limitation.

4. Confidentiality

Manuscripts provided for peer review are confidential scholarly documents.

Reviewers must not:

distribute the manuscript;
share manuscript files with unauthorized individuals;
disclose unpublished findings;
discuss confidential manuscript content publicly;
use manuscript information for personal or professional advantage;
use unpublished ideas in their own research without authorization; or
disclose reviewer or editorial correspondence improperly.

Confidentiality obligations continue after completion of the review, regardless of whether the manuscript is accepted, rejected, withdrawn, or revised.

5. Consultation With Other Individuals

A reviewer should not involve another individual in the review without prior authorization from the journal.

If specialist assistance is necessary, the reviewer should contact the responsible editor before sharing any manuscript content.

Where authorized assistance is provided, the individual contributing to the review should be identified appropriately so that confidentiality, contribution, and conflict-of-interest considerations can be managed transparently.

Reviewers remain responsible for the integrity of the review they submit.

6. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose circumstances that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their assessment.

Potential conflicts may include:

recent research collaboration with an author;
close institutional relationships;
direct professional competition;
financial interests;
commercial relationships;
personal relationships;
supervisory relationships;
active disputes;
involvement in closely related unpublished research;
intellectual-property interests; or
other circumstances that could compromise impartiality.

The existence of a possible conflict does not always mean that a review is impossible. However, the reviewer should disclose the situation to the editor and allow the journal to determine whether reassignment is appropriate.

7. Impartiality and Fairness

Reviews should be based on the scholarly merits of the manuscript.

Reviewers must not allow judgments to be improperly influenced by an author’s:

nationality;
country of residence;
institutional affiliation;
gender;
race or ethnicity;
religion;
seniority;
academic reputation;
political perspective;
personal identity; or
professional status.

The review should focus on the manuscript, evidence, methodology, reasoning, and contribution rather than assumptions about the authors.

8. Professional and Constructive Language

Reviewer reports should be written in professional academic language.

Comments should be:

specific;
respectful;
evidence-based;
constructive;
actionable where possible; and
directly relevant to the manuscript.

Personal criticism, ridicule, hostile language, sarcasm, insulting statements, discriminatory comments, or attacks on an author’s competence are inappropriate.

Critical assessment is encouraged where academically justified, but criticism should focus on the research rather than the researcher.

9. Timeliness

Reviewers should complete reviews within the time agreed with the journal.

If circumstances arise that make timely completion unlikely, the reviewer should inform the editorial office as soon as possible.

The editor may:

grant additional time;
reassign the manuscript; or
make another appropriate arrangement.

Reviewers should not retain manuscripts unnecessarily when they are unable to complete the review.

10. Initial Evaluation of the Manuscript

Before conducting a detailed review, the reviewer should consider the overall suitability of the manuscript.

Initial questions may include:

Is the research relevant to digital health or telemonitoring?
Is the research question clearly defined?
Does the manuscript present an identifiable scholarly contribution?
Is the article type appropriate?
Is the research design understandable?
Are major ethical requirements addressed?
Are the results interpretable?
Are the principal conclusions supported?
Is the manuscript sufficiently developed for detailed evaluation?

If a fundamental issue makes meaningful review impossible, the reviewer should inform the editor promptly.

11. Evaluation of the Title

The title should accurately represent the subject and principal focus of the manuscript.

Reviewers should consider whether the title is:

clear;
informative;
appropriately specific;
consistent with the study design; and
free from unsupported claims.

A title should not imply causality, effectiveness, superiority, safety, or generalizability beyond what the research design and evidence support.

12. Evaluation of the Abstract

The abstract should accurately summarize the manuscript.

Where applicable, reviewers should assess whether it adequately reports:

background or research problem;
objective;
methodology;
principal findings;
important quantitative results;
conclusion; and
overall contribution.

The abstract should not contain findings that are absent from the manuscript or conclusions that exceed the available evidence.

13. Evaluation of the Introduction

The introduction should establish a clear scholarly rationale for the study.

Reviewers should assess whether the authors:

explain the relevant background;
define the research problem;
engage with appropriate literature;
identify an unresolved issue;
explain the significance of the study;
establish relevance to digital health or telemonitoring; and
state clear objectives or research questions.

The introduction should be sufficiently focused and should not make unsupported claims concerning novelty or significance.

14. Evaluation of the Literature

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript engages appropriately with relevant scholarship.

The literature should:

provide adequate context;
include relevant primary and authoritative sources;
represent important perspectives fairly;
support statements made in the manuscript;
identify limitations in existing knowledge; and
establish the basis for the present study.

Reviewers should not request addition of their own publications unless those references are genuinely necessary to improve the scholarly accuracy or completeness of the manuscript.

15. Evaluation of Research Objectives

Research objectives, questions, or hypotheses should be clear and logically connected to the problem identified in the manuscript.

Reviewers should examine whether the:

objectives are sufficiently specific;
methodology addresses the objectives;
results correspond with the stated questions; and
conclusions respond appropriately to the original research purpose.

Major inconsistency among objectives, methodology, results, and conclusions should be identified clearly.

16. Evaluation of Methodology

The methodology should provide sufficient detail for meaningful scholarly assessment.

Depending on the research design, reviewers may consider:

study design;
research setting;
participant population;
sampling;
eligibility criteria;
recruitment;
intervention or exposure;
comparison groups;
data sources;
measurement instruments;
digital platforms;
telemonitoring devices;
wearable technologies;
software systems;
data collection procedures;
analytical methods;
statistical techniques;
validation procedures;
reliability measures;
study duration;
missing-data handling; and
methodological limitations.

The methods should be appropriate to the research objectives and described transparently.

17. Digital Health Intervention Studies

For studies evaluating digital health interventions, reviewers should consider whether the manuscript adequately describes:

intervention components;
intended users;
healthcare setting;
technological platform;
clinical workflow;
implementation procedure;
comparator where applicable;
duration;
adherence;
usability;
outcome measures;
technical failures;
participant engagement; and
relevant limitations.

Claims regarding effectiveness should be consistent with the research design.

18. Telemonitoring Studies

For telemonitoring research, reviewers should assess whether the manuscript provides adequate information regarding:

monitored variables;
monitoring devices;
measurement frequency;
data transmission;
clinical thresholds;
alerts;
human oversight;
response protocols;
data quality;
device reliability;
patient adherence;
connectivity limitations; and
clinical or operational outcomes.

The manuscript should distinguish clearly between technological feasibility, clinical effectiveness, patient acceptability, and health outcomes.

19. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Research

Where artificial intelligence or machine learning is used, reviewers should consider whether the authors report relevant methodological information transparently.

Depending on the study, this may include:

data source;
training dataset;
validation dataset;
test dataset;
preprocessing;
model architecture;
feature selection;
outcome definition;
performance metrics;
external validation;
comparison methods;
calibration;
uncertainty;
model limitations;
potential bias;
explainability; and
generalizability.

Reviewers should examine whether claims of accuracy, fairness, safety, intelligence, superiority, or clinical utility are supported by appropriate evidence.

20. Statistical Evaluation

Reviewers with appropriate expertise should assess whether statistical methods are suitable for the research design.

Relevant considerations may include:

sample size;
statistical assumptions;
effect estimates;
confidence intervals;
significance testing;
missing data;
multiple comparisons;
model selection;
confounding;
sensitivity analysis;
robustness;
diagnostic testing; and
interpretation of results.

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

Where specialized statistical expertise is required beyond the reviewer’s competence, this should be communicated to the editor.

21. Evaluation of Results

Results should be presented accurately, logically, and transparently.

Reviewers should consider whether:

findings correspond to the methods;
primary outcomes are clearly reported;
relevant negative or unexpected findings are included;
tables and graphs are consistent with the text;
numerical information is internally consistent;
uncertainty is appropriately reported;
selective reporting is evident;
results are separated from interpretation where appropriate; and
findings support subsequent conclusions.

Important discrepancies should be identified specifically.

22. Evaluation of Tables and Visual Materials

Tables, graphs, diagrams, images, and other visual material should contribute meaningfully to the manuscript.

Reviewers should consider whether visual materials:

are necessary;
are accurately labeled;
contain appropriate units;
have understandable captions;
correspond to the reported data;
avoid misleading presentation;
provide sufficient resolution;
acknowledge relevant sources; and
avoid unnecessary duplication.

Potential inappropriate image manipulation should be reported confidentially to the editor.

23. Evaluation of the Discussion

The discussion should interpret the findings in an academically balanced manner.

Reviewers should assess whether the authors:

explain the significance of the findings;
compare results with relevant previous research;
consider plausible alternative explanations;
identify clinical or practical implications appropriately;
acknowledge inconsistencies;
avoid unsupported causal claims;
discuss limitations; and
avoid overgeneralization.

The discussion should add interpretation rather than simply repeat the results.

24. Evaluation of the Conclusion

The conclusion should be supported by the research presented.

Reviewers should identify conclusions that:

exceed the evidence;
imply unsupported clinical effectiveness;
exaggerate technological performance;
generalize beyond the study population;
ignore major limitations; or
make recommendations not justified by the study.

A balanced conclusion should reflect both the contribution and limitations of the research.

25. Clinical and Patient Safety Considerations

Digital health and telemonitoring research may directly or indirectly affect patient care.

Where relevant, reviewers should consider:

potential patient harm;
inappropriate reliance on automated systems;
false-positive or false-negative alerts;
delayed clinical responses;
device malfunction;
data inaccuracies;
digital exclusion;
accessibility;
patient burden;
cybersecurity concerns;
privacy;
informed consent; and
adequacy of professional oversight.

Where a potentially serious safety concern is identified, the reviewer should communicate it clearly and confidentially to the editor.

26. Research Ethics

Reviewers should consider whether ethically regulated research appears to have been conducted with appropriate safeguards.

Where applicable, reviewers may assess whether the manuscript reports:

ethics committee or institutional review approval;
approval or reference number;
informed consent;
participant confidentiality;
privacy protection;
data protection;
consent for identifiable information; and
appropriate safeguards for vulnerable participants.

Reviewers should not attempt to conduct an institutional ethics investigation themselves but should notify the editor of material concerns.

27. Data Availability and Transparency

Where the manuscript is based on research data, reviewers should consider whether the data sources and availability arrangements are described appropriately.

Reviewers may assess whether:

the source of data is identifiable;
data collection is sufficiently documented;
a Data Availability Statement is provided where applicable;
restrictions are explained;
public datasets are properly identified;
reported analyses are consistent with described data; and
supporting information may be necessary for editorial evaluation.

Legitimate privacy, confidentiality, legal, or contractual restrictions should be respected.

28. Privacy and Confidentiality in Digital Health Research

Digital health research frequently involves sensitive health or behavioral information.

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript appropriately addresses issues such as:

personal health information;
identifiable digital data;
device-generated information;
geolocation information;
biometric data;
patient communications;
remote monitoring records;
mobile health application data; and
linked clinical databases.

Public data sharing should not be recommended where doing so would conflict with legitimate ethical, privacy, confidentiality, or legal obligations.

29. Cybersecurity and Digital-System Risks

Where relevant to the manuscript, reviewers may consider whether cybersecurity or information-security issues have been addressed sufficiently.

Relevant matters may include:

unauthorized access;
insecure transmission;
authentication;
data breaches;
system vulnerabilities;
device security;
cloud storage;
third-party platforms; and
unauthorized modification of health information.

Reviewers should avoid demanding technical detail unrelated to the study but should identify security issues that materially affect the interpretation or safety of the research.

30. Plagiarism and Research Integrity Concerns

Reviewers who identify possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, image manipulation, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, or another research-integrity concern should notify the editor confidentially.

Reviewers should provide:

the nature of the concern;
the relevant section of the manuscript;
supporting sources where available; and
sufficient information for editorial assessment.

Reviewers should not publicly accuse authors of misconduct or contact authors directly concerning suspected misconduct.

31. Duplicate or Overlapping Publication

If a reviewer becomes aware that substantially similar material has previously been published or submitted elsewhere, the reviewer should inform the editor.

Where possible, the reviewer should identify the related publication or source.

The editor will determine whether the overlap represents:

legitimate prior dissemination;
appropriately cited previous work;
duplicate publication;
redundant publication; or
another matter requiring clarification.

32. Citation Practices

Reviewers should evaluate references according to relevance and accuracy rather than quantity.

Reviewers should not:

require unnecessary citations;
pressure authors to cite the reviewer’s own work;
request citations solely to increase the citation count of a particular journal;
recommend irrelevant references; or
use the review process to manipulate citation metrics.

Relevant omissions may be identified where additional literature is genuinely necessary to support accuracy, context, or interpretation.

33. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Reviewers remain personally responsible for the intellectual content, accuracy, reasoning, and recommendation contained in their review.

Because manuscripts under review are confidential, reviewers must comply with the journal’s AI Usage Policy when using artificial intelligence tools.

Unless explicitly authorized by the journal, reviewers should not upload or disclose confidential manuscript text, figures, tables, data, supplementary files, author information, or editorial correspondence to external generative AI or large language model systems.

AI-generated material should not replace independent expert judgment.

A reviewer should not submit a review containing fabricated references, invented criticisms, inaccurate statements, or unsupported conclusions produced by an automated system.

34. Reviewer Use of Unpublished Information

Information obtained through peer review must not be used for:

personal research advantage;
competing grant applications;
commercial development;
patent activity;
professional competition;
publication before the authors; or
any other unauthorized purpose.

If the manuscript contains an idea particularly relevant to the reviewer’s current work, confidentiality requirements remain fully applicable.

35. Reviewer Identity

Reviewers should follow the journal’s declared peer-review model and should not intentionally reveal their identity where reviewer anonymity forms part of that model unless the journal explicitly permits disclosure.

Reviewers should also avoid inserting identifying information unintentionally into:

comments;
document metadata;
file names;
tracked changes; or
uploaded review files.

Where author identity is concealed under the journal’s review model, reviewers should not actively attempt to discover it.

36. Suspected Author Identification

In some specialized fields, reviewers may infer an author’s identity from the subject, cited work, dataset, institution, or study location.

Inference alone does not necessarily invalidate the review.

However, if recognition creates a conflict of interest or materially affects impartiality, the reviewer should notify the editor promptly.

37. Recommendations

After completing the assessment, the reviewer should provide a clear recommendation consistent with the journal’s available decision categories.

Recommendations may include:

Accept
The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive changes.

Minor Revision
The manuscript is potentially suitable after limited corrections, clarification, or presentation improvements.

Major Revision
Substantial methodological, analytical, conceptual, ethical, or reporting issues should be addressed before further consideration.

Reject
The manuscript contains fundamental problems, falls outside the journal’s scope, or is unsuitable for publication in its present research form.

The recommendation should be supported by the comments provided in the review.

38. Comments to Authors

Comments intended for authors should:

identify major issues clearly;
distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions;
explain the reasoning behind requested changes;
acknowledge relevant strengths where appropriate;
avoid contradictory instructions;
focus on achievable improvements; and
remain consistent with the overall recommendation.

Reviewers should avoid requiring authors to perform unnecessary additional experiments, analyses, or literature expansion without a clear scholarly justification.

39. Confidential Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may provide separate confidential comments to the editor where appropriate.

This section may be used for:

suspected plagiarism;
research-integrity concerns;
undeclared conflicts;
ethical concerns;
confidential reservations about reliability;
concerns regarding authorship;
suspected peer-review manipulation; or
other matters that should not initially be communicated directly to authors.

Confidential comments should not contradict the substantive scholarly evaluation presented to the authors without explaining the reason to the editor.

40. Reviewing Revised Manuscripts

When reviewing a revised manuscript, reviewers should evaluate whether the authors have addressed substantive concerns appropriately.

Reviewers should consider:

the revised manuscript;
the authors’ response;
changes made;
explanations for recommendations not followed; and
whether new issues have arisen because of the revision.

Reviewers should not repeatedly introduce major new requirements unless new concerns genuinely emerge from the revised manuscript.

41. Difference of Opinion

Authors are not required to accept every reviewer recommendation.

Where an author provides a well-reasoned scholarly explanation for not making a requested change, the reviewer should evaluate the response objectively.

Peer review is intended to improve and evaluate scholarship, not to require authors to adopt the reviewer’s preferred interpretation, writing style, theoretical position, or methodology when multiple legitimate approaches exist.

42. Reviewer Misconduct

Reviewer conduct that may compromise the integrity of peer review includes:

breach of confidentiality;
misuse of unpublished material;
undeclared conflicts of interest;
impersonation;
inappropriate delegation of review;
discriminatory assessment;
personal attacks;
citation coercion;
deliberate delay for competitive advantage;
submission of knowingly inaccurate reports;
manipulation of editorial decisions; or
unauthorized disclosure of manuscript content to AI systems or other third parties.

Credible concerns regarding reviewer conduct may be investigated by the journal and may result in removal from future reviewing activities or other appropriate action.

43. Reviewer Independence

Reviewers provide recommendations independently.

The journal does not require reviewers to reach identical conclusions.

Differences among reviewer reports may reflect legitimate differences in:

disciplinary perspective;
methodological interpretation;
clinical judgment;
statistical assessment;
technical expertise; or
evaluation of significance.

The editor is responsible for considering the reports collectively and making the final editorial determination.

44. Reviewer Recognition

The journal recognizes peer review as a scholarly contribution.

Where reviewer recognition or acknowledgment mechanisms are used, they should not compromise the confidentiality of the peer-review process or disclose information inconsistent with the journal’s stated review model.

Reviewers should not publicly disclose their involvement with a confidential manuscript without appropriate authorization.

45. Responsibilities After Completing the Review

After submitting a review, reviewers should continue to maintain manuscript confidentiality.

Reviewers should:

securely delete or appropriately dispose of confidential copies where necessary;
avoid discussing the manuscript publicly;
not use unpublished research content;
remain available for reasonable editorial clarification; and
notify the journal if a significant error in their own review is subsequently identified.

46. Reviewer Checklist

Before submitting a peer-review report, reviewers should confirm that:

Commitment to Responsible Peer Review

The Digital Health & Telemonitoring Advances considers responsible peer review an essential part of scholarly publishing. Reviewers contribute not only to editorial decision-making but also to the improvement, credibility, transparency, and integrity of published research.

The journal expects reviewers to approach every manuscript with appropriate expertise, independence, confidentiality, fairness, professional judgment, and respect for research integrity. Reviewer recommendations should be based on the quality and reliability of the submitted work rather than personal, institutional, financial, or other inappropriate considerations.

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers acknowledge their responsibility to conduct the assessment in accordance with these guidelines and the journal’s applicable editorial and publication-ethics policies.