GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS

The quality of the Journal of Endovascular Therapy depends on thorough, constructive critiques provided by its reviewers. The Editors appreciate the time and effort you expend on behalf of the Journal. Please remember that the manuscript and your review are confidential; do not duplicate or distribute this information.
   Recommendation Summary: Please rate this manuscript in the categories indicated and provide your recommendation for its disposition. If the paper is acceptable, please give your opinion of its priority for publication.
  Comments for Editors: Please provide specific recommendations regarding this paper's suitability for publication. This judgment should be based on the importance of the problem/topic, originality, thoroughness of scientific methodology and data analysis, and logical interpretation of the findings. Case reports must have a unique element that warrants publication. Please offer any suggestions for improvement in the content, writing, or presentation of the material. Please offer any suggestions for improvement in the content, writing, or presentation of the paper.
    Comments for Authors: Please explain your evaluation of the manuscript WITHOUT indicating its acceptability for publication. To help the authors improve the paper, please offer constructive suggestions. The following checklist may be useful:

Abstract: is it arranged in sections appropriate to the topic (e.g., purpose, methods, results, conclusions)? Is it a concise summary of information in the text?
Introduction: does it establish the purpose and goals of the study?
Methods: is this a thorough presentation of methodology with adequate description of the sample population/experimental model, complete explanation of technique(s)/procedure(s), and identification of data analysis methods? For Case Reports, are descriptions of the patient history, pathology, procedures, and outcome complete?
Results: does this section reflect a logical presentation of the study outcome?
Discussion: is this a succinct, sound interpretation of outcome data substantiated by literature review, experience, etc.? Are the arguments sound? Are the conclusions appropriate?
References: are these current and adequate to support the paper's arguments? Are there too many or too few (15 reference limit for case reports)?
Illustrations: Are these of good quality and useful to the paper? Are any superfluous or not worthy of publication? Are the legends clear and concise?
Tables: Is each table important to the paper, well organized, and easy to read? Do any need to be eliminated?

   To submit your review using our online form, enter your responses to each of the questions and type your Comments to the Authors/Editors in the designated boxes. To avoid having to duplicate your work should data be lost as you are working in the online form,  we suggest that you initially type your comments in a word processing document, save it, and copy/paste the material into the appropriate sections of the online form. 
   To submit a written review, please type your comments on the form provided with the manuscript, complete the summary, and either fax the pages to 1-602-650-1345 or send the form file by e-mail to editor@jevt.org. 
    Thank you for your assistance!