For Reviewers

Guidelines For Reviewers

• The unpublished manuscript is a privileged document. Please protect it from any form of exploitation. Reviewers are expected not to cite a manuscript or refer to the work it describes before it has been published, and to refrain from using the information it contains for the advancement of their own research.
• A reviewer should consciously adopt a positive, impartial attitude towards the manuscript under review. Your position should be that of the author’s ally, with the aim of promoting effective and accurate scientific communication.
• If you believe that you cannot judge a given article impartially, please return the manuscript immediately to the editor with that explanation.
• Reviews should be completed expeditiously, within 3-4 weeks. If you know that you cannot finish the review within the time specified, please inform the editor.
• A reviewer should not discuss a paper with its author/s. If you want to consult a colleague or junior please discuss this with us first.
• Please do not make any specific statement about the acceptability of a paper in your comments for transmission to the author, but advise the Editors on the review feedback sheet provided.
• In your review, please consider the following aspects of the manuscript as far as they are applicable:
• In making your recommendation to the journal Editors, consider the manuscript under review using the Scientific and Quality Assessment table based on the National Institutes of Health guidelines which can be found here.
• In your review, please consider the following aspects of the manuscript as far as they are applicable:

1. 1. 1. Scientific reliability;
      2. Importance (clinical or otherwise) of the question or subject studied
      3. Originality (truly original or known to you through general or specialist publications);
      4. Adequacy of abstract, keywords;
      5. Appropriateness of approach or study design, adequacy of experimental techniques (including statistics where appropriate, need for statistical assessment). Are the methods adequately described and appropriate? Are the patients/participants studied adequately described and their conditions defined?
      6. Are results relevant to the problem posed? Are the results credible and well presented?
      7. The soundness of conclusions and interpretation. Are the interpretations and conclusions warranted and supported by the data? Are the scientific  speculations reasonable? Is the message clear?
      8. Relevance of discussion
      9. Are the references up to date and relevant? Do the references contain any glaring omissions of key literature?
      10. The relevance of the figures and table, clarity of legends and titles to support readability and understanding.
      11. Suitability for journal and overall recommendations. Is the topic appropriate for general readership or more appropriate for a specialist journal?
      12. If not acceptable can the paper be improved and how and where can improvements be made?
      13. Ethical aspects: Does the paper have major ethical issues?
      14. Overall presentation (including English language, grammar, writing style, clarity of writing)

• In comments intended for the authors, criticism should be presented dispassionately and constructively, and abrasive remarks should be avoided.
• Suggested revisions should be couched as such, and not expressed as conditions of acceptance. Please distinguish between revisions considered essential and those judged merely desirable.
• Even if we do not accept a paper we would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the author to improve it and potentially submit elsewhere. For this reason please endeavor to give detailed comments (with references, if appropriate) that will help both the editors to make a decision on the paper and the authors to improve it.
• Your criticism, arguments, and suggestions concerning that paper will be most useful to the editor if they are carefully documented..
• You are not requested to correct mistakes/s in grammar, but any help in this regard will be appreciated.
• The editor gratefully receives a reviewer’s recommendations, but since the editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, a reviewer should not expect the editor to honor all of his or her  recommendations.
• Please check for plagiarism using the link provided https://www.plagramme.com

*(Based on the guidelines provided by Council of Science Editors)