The Netherlands Journal of Critical Care (Neth. J. Crit. Care) relies on qualified and independent reviewers to maintain the scientific quality, integrity, and credibility of its published content. The journal follows a single-blind peer-review process, in which the identity of the reviewer is concealed from the authors, while the authors' identities are available to the reviewer.

Single-Blind Peer Review

Under the single-blind peer-review model, reviewers are provided with information about the authors and their affiliations, but reviewers' identities are not disclosed to the authors.

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and should not disclose their identity or discuss the manuscript with the authors or other individuals unless expressly authorized by the editorial office.

Role of Reviewers

Reviewers play an essential role in supporting the editorial process. Their primary responsibilities include:

• Evaluating the scientific quality, originality, relevance, and methodological soundness of the manuscript.
• Assessing whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the presented evidence.
• Identifying significant methodological, ethical, or reporting concerns.
• Providing constructive and professional comments that can help authors improve their manuscript.
• Identifying potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or manipulated data, or other publication-ethics concerns.
• Maintaining strict confidentiality throughout the review process.
• Declaring any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.
• Submitting the review within the agreed timeframe or informing the editorial office if additional time is required.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, copy, distribute, discuss, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal, academic, or professional advantage.

Reviewer comments and recommendations should be submitted exclusively through the designated editorial system or to the editorial office.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline an invitation if they have a personal, professional, financial, institutional, or academic relationship that could compromise their impartiality.

If a potential conflict becomes apparent after accepting an invitation, the reviewer should immediately inform the editorial office.

Become a Reviewer

Researchers and healthcare professionals with relevant academic qualifications, research experience, and subject expertise are welcome to express their interest in becoming reviewers for the Netherlands Journal of Critical Care.

Prospective reviewers should provide relevant professional and academic information, including:

• Full name
• Academic or professional designation
• Institutional affiliation
• Areas of expertise
• Academic qualifications
• Research interests
• ORCID iD, where available
• Recent relevant publications
• Contact information

Reviewer selection is based on subject expertise, academic experience, research interests, publication record, and the absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

Guide for Peer Reviewers

Reviewers are encouraged to consider the following areas when evaluating a manuscript:

1. Relevance and Scope
Assess whether the manuscript is relevant to the aims and scope of the journal and contributes meaningfully to critical care medicine.

2. Originality and Significance
Consider whether the work presents original findings, meaningful insights, or a valuable contribution to existing scientific knowledge.

3. Title and Abstract
Assess whether the title accurately reflects the manuscript and whether the abstract clearly presents the objectives, methods, principal findings, and conclusions.

4. Introduction
Evaluate whether the background is appropriate, the research problem is clearly identified, and the objectives or research questions are adequately stated.

5. Methodology
Assess whether the study design and methods are appropriate, sufficiently described, scientifically sound, and reproducible.

6. Results
Evaluate whether the results are clearly presented and whether the data adequately address the stated objectives or research questions.

7. Discussion and Conclusions
Assess whether the findings are appropriately interpreted, compared with relevant literature, and supported by the presented evidence. Conclusions should be consistent with the results and should not overstate the findings.

8. References
Review whether the references are relevant, appropriate, sufficiently current, and accurately cited.

9. Ethical Considerations
Consider whether appropriate ethical approval, informed consent, patient confidentiality, animal welfare considerations, clinical trial registration, or other relevant ethical requirements have been addressed where applicable.

10. Language and Presentation
Comment on clarity, organization, terminology, tables, figures, and overall presentation where these affect understanding of the scientific content.

Reviewer Recommendation

At the conclusion of the review, reviewers should provide a clear recommendation to the editor, such as:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

The recommendation should be supported by the reviewer's comments and overall assessment of the manuscript.

Comments to Authors

Comments provided to authors should be clear, objective, respectful, and constructive. Reviewers should distinguish between major concerns that affect the validity or interpretation of the study and minor issues that can be addressed through revision.

Personal, offensive, discriminatory, or unnecessarily discouraging remarks should not be included.

Comments to the Editor

Where appropriate, reviewers may provide confidential comments to the editor regarding issues that should not be disclosed to the authors. Such comments should remain professional, evidence-based, and relevant to the editorial decision.

Ethical and Publication Standards

Reviewers are expected to follow recognized principles of publication ethics and research integrity, including relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and other applicable scholarly standards.

The Netherlands Journal of Critical Care appreciates the valuable contribution of reviewers and recognizes their role in maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of the peer-review and publication process.