Guide for Reviewers

INSTRUCTIONS TO REVIEWERS


DECIDING WHETHER TO REVIEW A MANUSCRIPT

 Reviewers should not accept to review a manuscript if

1. A personal or financial conflict of interest exists.

2. The reviewer feels he or she cannot give an impartial and objective review, free from professional or personal bias.

 

If a conflict of interest does not exist, please consider whether you can complete the review within 2 weeks; if it is not possible; please contact the editor. 

 

PEER REVIEW PROCESS


Ethical Responsibilities

The reviewer should maintain confidentiality about the existence and substance of the manuscript. It is inappropriate to share the manuscript or to discuss it in detail with others before publication. 

Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests.

The reviewer also has the responsibility of noting any ethical concerns, not limited to but including suspected duplicate publication, fraud, plagiarism, or ethical concerns about the use of animals or humans in the research being reported.

 

Confidential comments to the Editor

Summarize your reasons for your recommendations. Provide specific comments regarding the original aspects of the work and its importance.

The reviewer also makes a recommendation for publication.

 

 

Comments to the Author

Comments should be stated in a constructive and helpful way. Include in your critique your judgment of

1) originality and scientific importance,

2) adequacy and length of the title,

3) adequacy of the abstract,

4) adequacy of introduction,

5) adequacy of material and methods,

6) quality of data and presentation of results and the discussion,

7) appropriateness of the authors' interpretation of their data,

9) inclusion of recent and appropriate references.

 

If possible, make specific recommendations for revisions.