Reviewers

Guidelines for reviewers

This page contains information for reviewers about basic considerations when assessing a manuscript under review. More information on the journal’s editorial policies and aims and scope can be found at Aims and Scope and Publication Ethics.  Reviewers are requested to read the content of this page and relevant information on the other two sections carefully.

Considerations before deciding to accept a review request

  • Do you have enough expertise in the area of the manuscript to give a detailed and constructive review?
  • Do you have a potential conflict of interest?
  • Do you have time to review the manuscript before the deadline?

Points to consider when assessing a manuscript under review

Reviewers should consider the following issues when reviewing articles:

  • Do the title and the keywords correctly reflect the content of the paper?

Ask yourself if the title is clearly defined or whether it is ambiguous or misleading. Are the keywords appropriate to facilitate access to the article and increase its visibility when researchers search for articles in this subject?

  • Does the submitted manuscript pose or address a well-defined issue?

Once evaluating a manuscript, reviewers should ask themselves if the manuscript has reached a clear conclusion about a problem which can be defined and understood within the boundaries of the subject matter.

  • Does the submitted manuscript offer original material or new insights into the subject?

Reviewers should ask themselves if they have learned something new after studying the paper under consideration.

  • Is the interpretation well-balanced and supported by data?

The discussion and conclusion of the study should be discussed in an unbiased manner. The interpretation of the obtained data should not be overly positive or negative.

  • Is the methodology identified and justified?

Reviewers may comment on possible modifications or improvements to the study design to enhance the quality of the results. If the methods employed are novel, special attention should be given to their reliability and validity.

  • Does the submitted manuscript provide sufficient details to allow others evaluate or replicate the work?

The methods employed to conduct the study should be discussed in full detail to be reproduced by peers in the field.

  • Do the structure, English writing, tables or figures need to be improved?

Please do comment on the quality and clarity of the data presented in the manuscript. For instance, If you think the structure of the manuscript has been organized in an illogical manner or it is hard to comprehend for the reader, or if you think the presentation of the data is in such a manner that the clarity would be improved if it was presented through other means, please do write your suggestions in detail. Please do comment if you doubt whether the presented data are genuine or if you think they are of low quality to be published in their present form.

  • Are there any possible conflicts of interest that you would like to raise?

If you are aware of any competing interests not adequately addressed by the authors, please inform the Editor-in-Chief.

 

Important remarks

  • Reviewers who think they are in shortage of time to provide a prompt review or they think they are unqualified in the area of the assigned manuscript should inform the Editor-in-Chief to be excluded from the peer review process.
  • Any manuscript sent for peer review should remain confidential during the peer review process.
  • Information obtained from the manuscript under consideration should not be discussed or shared with any third parties until it is published.
  • Comments or criticism of the manuscript under consideration should be objective and not directed personally at the authors.