1. Selection of Peer Reviewer

Our editors choose peer reviewers whose expertise most closely matches the manuscript's topic and invite them to review the paper.
Peer reviewer will be asked to judge whether the manuscript contributes sufficiently to our knowledge of sleep science.

2. Peer Review Criteria

Peer Reviewer should give estimates of the academic value of the submitted manuscript, together with some basis for his/her opinion, especially in terms of originality, importance to researchers involved, rigorous methodology with substantial evidence for its conclusions, and the highest ethical standards.

SMR currently considers the following article types: Original Articles, Reviews, Brief Communications, and Images in Sleep Medicine.

I. When assessing the work, please consider the following points:

1. Is the question posed by the authors new and well defined?
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described, and are sufficient details provided to replicate the work?
3. Are the data sound and well controlled?
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data deposition?
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported by the data?
6. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
7. Is the writing acceptable?

Comment to authors
1. Major Comments (the author must respond to these before a decision on publication can be reached: for example, additional necessary experiments or controls, statistical mistakes, errors in interpretation).
2. Minor Comments (such as missing labels on figures, the wrong use of a term, or spelling errors, which the author can be trusted to correct).

- Please number your comments to the authors.
- Please note that your comments will be passed on to the authors.

Confidential comments to the editors
Please use this only for comments that relate to ethical or policy issues. Do not use it to repeat all or part of the comments in your review for the authors. These comments will not be included in the report passed on to the authors.

III. After you have completed your report, please answer the following questions regarding the acceptability of the manuscript:

Given your assessment of the manuscript, what do you recommend should be the next step?
1. Accept without revision
2. Accept with minor revision
3. Major revisions recommended
4. Reject

Please indicate what your recommendation for the level of priority in terms of several categories:
1. Originality
2. Scientific importance
3. Experimental design
4. Adequacy of method
5. Brevity and clarity
6. Overall priority for publication
7. Potential, if adequately revised

3. Review Process

Submitted manuscripts will be assigned to one of the SMR editors. If the manuscript is acceptable with regard to content and quality, usually one of our editorial board members with expertise in the relevant area is then assigned to read the manuscript. The editor will promptly assess the manuscript and will decide if it is likely to meet the requirement of providing a major advance in a particular field and describing a sufficient body of work to support that claim; if so, it will be sent out for peer review. The editor then makes a decision based on the reviewers’ comments.
When a manuscript has been revised in response to the reviewers’ comments, we ask the reviewers to offer additional comments on the revised manuscript.

4. Timely Review

The efficient editorial process that results in timely publication provides a valuable service both to authors and to readers. We therefore request that reviewers respond promptly. If reviewers need more time, we request that they contact us promptly so that we can keep the authors informed and, if necessary, assign alternate reviewers.