Thank you for reviewing for JMPCC. Please follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the guidance below.

Before accepting

•     Accept only within your expertise and if you can respond on time.

•     Declare competing interests, including relationships with manufacturers of drugs or devices discussed in the manuscript.

•     Tell the editor if you believe you know the authors.

Research articles — what to assess

•     Clinical question: important, clearly defined and relevant to practice?

•     Design: appropriate; for trials, adequate randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding; pre-registered primary outcome matching the reported one.

•     Participants and setting: eligibility criteria, setting and generalisability described.

•     Interventions: drugs, doses, timing and techniques described in enough detail to reproduce.

•     Outcomes: clinically meaningful, clearly defined, and measured consistently (e.g., standard definitions of postoperative complications, AKI, delirium or sepsis).

•     Statistics: sample size justification, handling of missing data, adjustment for confounding, appropriate effect measures with confidence intervals.

•     Safety: adverse events reported; patient safety implications considered.

•     Ethics and consent: appropriate for the patient population, especially patients lacking capacity.

•     Reporting: compliance with CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA or other relevant guideline.

•     Conclusions: supported by the results and not overstated.

Case reports, case series and clinical images — what to assess

•     Does the case add new knowledge or clear educational value (rare presentation, unexpected complication, adverse drug reaction, new technique or management)?

•     Is it stated that written informed consent for publication was obtained? Is that plausible for the case (e.g., from next of kin if the patient died)?

•     Could the patient be identified from the text, dates, images, monitor screens or radiographs by staff, family or the patient?

•     Does the report follow CARE, including a timeline, diagnostic reasoning, management, follow-up and outcome?

•     Is the discussion balanced, with relevant literature, and does it avoid generalising from a single case?

•     Are the learning points useful to practising clinicians?

Writing the report

1.    Brief summary of the manuscript.

2.    Major comments, numbered.

3.    Minor comments.

4.    Confidential comments to the editor (optional), including ethical or consent concerns.

5.    Recommendation: accept, minor revision, major revision or reject.

Ethical obligations

•     Keep the manuscript confidential and delete it after review; do not upload it to AI tools.

•     Do not contact the authors or request citation of your own work without scientific need.

•     Report suspected misconduct to the editor.