Reviewer Guidelines

There can be no scientific progress without the dissemination of information that can be trusted, and the peer review process is a vital part of that system. Thus, reviewers make a very important contribution to the advancement of science and perform an invaluable service to the entire community of science. Using part of one's time to review a scientific work is an act of generosity, because the role of reviewer is normally not paid. However, the reviewer is usually also a researcher who benefits from having his work carefully judged by the reviewers when it is submitted to a scientific journal. Furthermore, being selected as a reviewer by the editor of an important scientific journal is a certificate of esteem by qualified colleagues. To thank the reviewers and certify that they have carried out this important activity, Haematologica publishes at the beginning of each year the names of those who revised papers in the previous year.

Reviewers can download this highly-recommended editorial from (Ten Simple Rules for Reviewers).

Reviews will be expected to be professional, honest, and constructive. The desired major elements of a high-quality review should be as follows:

  • The reviewer should have identified and commented on major strengths and weaknesses of study design and methodology;
  • The reviewer should comment accurately and constructively upon the quality of the author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations;
  • The reviewer should comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study;
  • The reviewer should comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of low standards of scientific conduct;
  • The reviewer should provide the author with useful suggestions for improvement of the experimental work and the manuscript;
  • The reviewer's comments to the author should be constructive and professional;
  • The review should provide the editor the proper context and perspective to make a decision on acceptance (and/or revision) of the manuscript.

Confidentiality of the review process. The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication: reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential, and should not retain or copy or share the manuscripts with others. We do accept and even recommend that reviewers discuss the manuscript and their review with one junior colleague in their own group or department, in order to train junior colleagues on the aspects of peer review. Reviewers should disclose the name of the junior colleague who was involved in the review process in the comments to the editor. Reviewers must not share the manuscript with other colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor. Reviewers and editors must not make any personal or professional use of the data, arguments, or interpretations (other than those directly involved in its peer review) prior to publication unless they have the authors' specific permission or are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the article.

Artificial Intelligence (AI). Reviewers are prohibited from uploading any part of the manuscript and related material into an AI platform, including generative AI chatbots such as ChatGPT, because this puts the confidentiality of what has been submitted at risk. For the same reason, writing reviewers' comments with AI is also strongly discouraged. Other uses of AI, such as searching for data/references needed for review, are permitted.

If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should notify the editor in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties unless officially notified by the journal that they may do so.

Peer reviewers must login to our online Manuscript Tracking System to gain access to the manuscript and to provide their comments. Reviewers may already have an account and simply need to sign in, or reviewers will need to create new account.