Scientific & Medical Reviewers
What qualified review means, how it is attributed, and the review status readers should look for.
Page updated
- 01Relevant expertise
- 02Verified attribution
- 03Visible review status
A review attribution should identify the person, the scope, and the version examined.
Current reviewer status
A verified, individually named external reviewer roster is not currently published. External scientific and medical review should be treated as pending unless the individual article records a verified reviewer and a completed review date.
This page sets out the requirements for reviewer participation and attribution. It does not establish that an active medical board, a fully staffed clinical panel, or specialty oversight exists across every article. We do not publish placeholder doctors or unverified qualifications.
Expertise matched to the question.
Scientific review
Chemical identity, biological interpretation, study methods, and the connection between claims and sources.
Medical review
Clinical interpretation, relevance to patients, and accurate presentation of safety and practice limitations.
Scientific and medical review have different scopes
Scientific review may examine chemical identity, biological interpretation, study methods, or the relationship between a claim and its sources. The relevant expertise depends on the question and may come from an appropriate research background.
Medical review focuses on clinical interpretation, including whether conclusions apply to the studied population and whether important safety and practice limitations are presented accurately. Neither activity should be described as journal peer review or regulatory approval.
Choosing an appropriately qualified reviewer
A reviewer’s training and experience should fit the material being assessed. A clinical pharmacology discussion, a chemistry explanation, and a clinical outcome comparison may require different expertise. A general title should not imply proficiency in every topic.
Before an attribution is published, identity, relevant qualifications, and any claimed professional registration or affiliation should be checked through an appropriate official or institutional source. The reviewer should consent to the published attribution and its wording.
Independence and conflicts of interest
Prospective reviewers should disclose relevant employment, consulting, investments, patents, research sponsorship, and relationships with manufacturers, vendors, or clinics. The publication should assess whether the relationship requires disclosure, reassignment, or exclusion.
A reviewer cannot buy an endorsement, require favorable coverage, or suppress a necessary correction on behalf of a commercial interest. Independent review also requires attention to intellectual commitments and selective interpretation, beyond financial disclosure alone.
What completed review attribution should include
An article with completed external review should identify the reviewer by name, list relevant verified credentials, record the review date, and explain the scope if only part of the article was examined. Relevant financial or professional conflicts should be disclosed.
Review attaches to a specific version of the material. If the article’s clinical interpretation changes substantially, an old attribution should not imply approval of the new text. A review date describes a completed action, rather than a promise of continuous surveillance.
What review can and cannot establish
A documented review can improve the clarity and accuracy of a publication’s interpretation. It cannot make missing evidence available, remove limitations from a study, or turn a preclinical observation into a demonstrated clinical benefit.
A reviewer attribution is not a treatment recommendation, a guarantee that every error has been eliminated, or an endorsement of a product or provider. Readers should continue to examine the sources, evidence setting, and article limitations.
Reviewer inquiries and attribution concerns
Researchers or clinicians interested in contributing review expertise may contact the editorial team with their field, relevant experience, verifiable qualifications, and potential conflicts. An inquiry does not establish an appointment or a completed review relationship.
If you believe a review label or credential on an article is inaccurate, identify the page and the disputed attribution through our contact page. See the Scientific Review Process for the intended workflow and the Medical Review Policy for labeling standards.