Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should not accept to review a manuscript if a conflict of interest exists. Examples of typical conflicts of interest are:
- The reviewer has an ownership interest in a company that stands to benefit from the results reported in the manuscript.
- The reviewer is currently collaborating with the author or has recently collaborated with the author (i.e. within the past 5 years).
- The reviewer feels he or she cannot give an impartial and objective review, free from professional or personal bias.
If you have questions regarding a potential conflict of interest, please contact the handling editor, and he/she will decide whether it is appropriate to review the manuscript.
Please consider whether you can complete the review within 10 days. Also, after agreeing to complete a review, if unforeseen circumstances prevent the reviewer from completing within the allotted time, please contact the editor immediately.
Constructing a Review
1. Grading a manuscript
In this section of the review form, the reviewer ranks the 1) Novelty/Originality, 2) Scientific Importance/Impact, 3) Adequacy of Methods/Experimental Design, 4) Quality of Data/Presentation Results, and 5) Overall Scientific Priority of the manuscript based on the following scale:
- Grade 1- Accepted.
- Grade 2- Accepted with minor changes.
- Grade 3- Accepted after major changes.
- Grade 4- Rejected
- N/A = Does not apply to this paper
Manuscripts are likely to be accepted for publication basing on the grades given by reviewers. The reviewer also makes a recommendation for publication. Indicate whether you have any concerns regarding the statistical analysis used or if there are any ethical considerations.
2. In confidential comments to the Editor
Summarize your reasons for your grading and recommendations. Provide specific comments regarding the original aspects of the work and its importance.
3. In comments to the Author
The comments to the author should not include any statements that indicate to the author your judgment as to the acceptability of the paper for publication. All comments should be stated in a constructive and helpful way. The reviewer should discuss the shortcomings and/or strengths of a study.
Include in your critique your judgment of
- originality and scientific importance
- adequacy and length of the title
- adequacy of the abstract
- introduction, rationale and clarity of hypothesis
- adequacy of experimental design and methods
- quality of data and presentation of results, including figures
- appropriateness of the authors’ interpretation of their data
- length and appropriateness of the discussion
- inclusion of recent and appropriate references. If possible, make specific recommendations for revisions.