Guide for Reviewers

A general guide for reviewers can be found at:

We understand that reviewers are busy people. If for any reason you are unable to complete a review in the time-frame requested, please tell us as soon as possible so that alternative arrangements can be made. The office email address is:

When reviewing articles for the Journal of Hepatology, we kindly ask the reviewers to bear the following points in mind, in addition to their usual reviewing criteria (please see the general guide for further details). This document reflects the requests made in the Journal of Hepatology Guide for Authors.


As a general guideline, the most effective titles are no more than 10-12 words and should readily give readers an overall view of the paper's significance. Please ask authors to refrain from using abbreviations in the title that may not be possible for the wide readership of the Journal of Hepatology.


Is the abstract clear and does it represent the key scientific content of the paper?

The abstract should be structured by means of appropriate headings, should have the following layout:

  • Background & Aims: Context of research and state the main aim or objective of the study
  • Methods: Essential information on the methods used, a selection of study subjects or laboratory animals and the observational and analytical methods applied
  • Results: Description of the key findings of the study. Specific effect sizes and their statistical significance should be stated
  • Conclusions: Concise summary that emphasizes new and important aspects of the study or observations

Is the graphical abstract a pictorial representation of the paper? Please suggest improvements if appropriate.


Are the details provided in the materials and methods section sufficient to reproduce the experiment? The new CTAT methods table (see Guide for Authors) is mandatory for revised submissions, and will be requested by the journal office. However, clear and reproducible methods should be included in the main body of the text.

Is the statistical analysis appropriate for the study? The journal can send manuscripts to additional statistical reviewers if a reviewer is not confident in reporting on the statistical analysis. Please contact the journal office if this is the case and please give details in the confidential comments to the Editor.

Are there any ethical matters that the authors should address before publication? For publications reporting clinical trials, animal studies, randomised control trials etc., are the appropriate guidelines followed (e.g., CONSORT 2010)?


Do the data and methods substantiate the conclusions? Please comment on whether any additional information is required.

Is all the data necessary to substantiate the claims made? Would some data be more appropriate in supplementary materials or removed entirely? The journal has a limit of 8 tables and figures per article.

Are data appropriately stored in open access repositories? Please suggest this to the authors as appropriate.


Are the findings of the study novel and are they appropriate from the data provided? Please comment on whether there are similar studies already published.

General remarks

Are writing conventions followed (e.g., gene symbols italicised, SI units used etc.)?

Could the English language benefit from improvement? Please suggest sending manuscripts for language editing if this is the case.

Reviewers are highly encouraged to write comments directly to the Editor in the confidential comments section. This will help give a more personal insight into the paper and aid the decision-making process.

In any comments to the authors, the reviewers must not provide any comment on what the Editorial decision might be.

Useful links

Thank you very much for taking the time to help us to uphold the high standard of research published in the Journal of Hepatology.

For any queries, please contact the Editorial Office at: