Presentation

Does the manuscript present a coherent scientific argument? Are the research problem, methods, findings, and interpretations clearly and logically organized?

Writing

Does the title accurately characterize the manuscript? Is the writing concise, precise, scientifically appropriate, and easy to follow? Are clinical and health-related terms used consistently and accurately?

Length

Which parts of the manuscript should be expanded, removed, condensed, summarized, or combined to improve clarity, scientific rigor, and contribution to clinical or health innovation?

Title

Is the title concise, informative, and representative of the study design, population, intervention, technology, or principal findings? Does it avoid unnecessary abbreviations, ambiguous terminology, and claims that exceed the evidence presented?

Abstract

Does the abstract clearly include:

• The background and objective of the study;
• The study design, participants, setting, intervention or innovation, instruments, and analytical methods;
• The principal findings, including relevant quantitative results where appropriate; and
• The conclusion and clinical, technological, public health, or healthcare implications?

Are the conclusions in the abstract consistent with the study design and reported findings?

Introduction

Does the introduction clearly describe:

• The clinical, healthcare, public health, or technological problem being investigated;
• The significance and current relevance of the problem for patients, healthcare professionals, institutions, or health systems;
• Relevant previous studies and current scientific evidence;
• The theoretical, clinical, methodological, technological, or practical research gap;
• The novelty and expected contribution of the study;
• The rationale for the proposed intervention, technology, diagnostic approach, therapeutic strategy, or healthcare innovation; and
• The research objective, research question, and hypotheses where applicable?

Method

• Is the study design clearly identified and appropriate for answering the research question?
• Are the research setting, study period, population, sample size, sampling method, eligibility criteria, and participant characteristics clearly reported?
• Is the sample-size determination or statistical power analysis adequately explained where applicable?
• Are clinical interventions, treatments, diagnostic procedures, technologies, devices, software, or healthcare innovations described in sufficient detail for replication?
• Are comparison groups, control conditions, randomization procedures, allocation concealment, and blinding explained where relevant?
• Are the variables, operational definitions, outcomes, instruments, clinical measurements, and data-collection procedures clearly described?
• Are the validity, reliability, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, or other relevant measurement properties reported?
• Are statistical or qualitative analysis procedures appropriate and sufficiently detailed?
• Are methods for managing missing data, confounding variables, bias, and potential sources of uncertainty explained?
• For clinical trials, does the manuscript provide trial registration information and follow appropriate reporting standards?
• For diagnostic studies, are the reference standard, index test, diagnostic thresholds, and performance measures clearly reported?
• For digital health, artificial intelligence, or medical technology studies, are the dataset, development process, validation strategy, system architecture, performance metrics, usability, safety, and implementation context sufficiently explained?
• For systematic reviews or meta-analyses, are the databases, search strategy, eligibility criteria, study-selection process, quality appraisal, risk-of-bias assessment, and synthesis methods transparently reported?
• Has approval from an appropriate research ethics committee or institutional review board been obtained and reported?
• Are informed consent, participant privacy, data confidentiality, and applicable ethical standards adequately addressed?

Results

• Are the results presented clearly, logically, and in accordance with the research objectives?
• Are participant recruitment, inclusion, exclusion, withdrawal, and final analysis numbers clearly reported?
• Are baseline participant characteristics and relevant clinical or demographic information adequately presented?
• Are the main and secondary outcomes reported using appropriate descriptive and inferential statistics?
• Are effect sizes, confidence intervals, exact probability values, and measures of uncertainty reported where appropriate?
• Are adverse events, complications, safety concerns, or unintended effects reported where relevant?
• For diagnostic studies, are sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios, diagnostic accuracy, and area under the curve reported where appropriate?
• For artificial intelligence, digital health, or medical technology studies, are appropriate performance, calibration, validation, usability, reliability, and safety results provided?
• Are qualitative findings supported by clear themes, participant evidence, and transparent analytical interpretation?
• Are tables and figures necessary, readable, correctly labelled, and not duplicative of the main text?
• Are the reported results consistent across the abstract, main text, tables, figures, and supplementary materials?

Discussion

• Does the discussion interpret the principal findings rather than merely repeat the results?
• Are the findings compared critically with relevant previous clinical, health, technological, or public health studies?
• Does the manuscript explain possible clinical, biological, behavioral, technological, organizational, or social mechanisms underlying the findings?
• Are unexpected, contradictory, or non-significant findings adequately discussed?
• Are the clinical significance and practical relevance distinguished from statistical significance?
• Are the implications for clinical practice, patient care, public health, health policy, healthcare management, or technology implementation clearly discussed?
• Does the manuscript explain how the proposed innovation improves existing clinical, diagnostic, therapeutic, preventive, or healthcare practices?
• Are feasibility, accessibility, acceptability, cost, scalability, equity, safety, and sustainability considered where relevant?
• Are study limitations, potential biases, methodological constraints, and threats to generalizability transparently acknowledged?
• Are recommendations for future research specific, realistic, and supported by the study findings?

Conclusion

Does the conclusion:

• Directly answer the research objective or question;
• Accurately summarize the principal findings without repeating the entire Results section;
• Avoid causal, clinical, or generalizable claims that are not supported by the study design and evidence;
• State the main clinical, healthcare, technological, public health, or policy implications;
• Provide appropriate recommendations for practice, implementation, or future research where relevant; and
• Appear as a coherent paragraph rather than bullet points or numbering?

Ethical and Reporting Standards

• Does the study comply with applicable ethical principles for research involving humans, animals, clinical data, biological materials, or healthcare technologies?
• Are ethical approval, informed consent, privacy protection, and data confidentiality clearly reported?
• Are conflicts of interest, funding sources, author contributions, data availability, and use of artificial intelligence tools disclosed where applicable?
• Does the manuscript follow an appropriate reporting guideline, such as CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE, STARD, TRIPOD, COREQ, SRQR, ARRIVE, or other relevant standards?
• Are clinical trial registration numbers, research protocols, or repository information provided where required?

References

• Are the references relevant, current, and sufficient to support the scientific background, methods, and interpretation?
• Does the manuscript appropriately cite recent clinical guidelines, systematic reviews, high-quality primary studies, and authoritative health sources?
• Are references accurately cited in the text and consistently formatted according to the journal’s reference style?
• Are excessive self-citations, irrelevant citations, citation manipulation, or reliance on unreliable sources avoided?
• Are digital object identifiers or other permanent identifiers included where available?

Scope Fit for JCHI

Does the manuscript clearly align with the scope of JAPRSW : Journal of Applied Psychology, Resilience, and Social Well-Being by providing an original and scientifically rigorous contribution to clinical practice, healthcare innovation, public health, medical science, health technology, diagnostics, therapeutics, prevention, rehabilitation, patient safety, healthcare management, digital health, artificial intelligence in healthcare, or related interdisciplinary fields?

Does the manuscript demonstrate a meaningful innovation, improvement, evaluation, or application that may contribute to better patient outcomes, healthcare quality, clinical decision-making, health-system performance, population health, or evidence-based practice?