We consider manuscript refereeing as a highly-regarded and honorable service to
the readers and to the scientific community at large. Reviewers play a pivotal role
not only in helping to evaluate individual manuscript but also in determining the
overall quality of the journal. Therefore, we take great care when choosing reviewers
and take into account their expertise and reputation in the field as well as our
own past experience with them.
Reviewers should treat the whole review process and any correspondence with them
in this regards, either from the editor or from the publisher, strictly confidential,
nor should they discuss the manuscript directly with someone not involved in the
review process without the editor's prior consent.
We believe that anonymity of the reviewers is important for an objective review
of a manuscript. Therefore, we do not disclose identities of the reviewers to the
authors or to other reviewers of the manuscript, during or after the review process,
unless a reviewer specifically wants us to do so.
Our aim is to complete the whole review process and publication of a manuscript
as promptly as possible in order to keep timeliness of the published research. We
therefore ask our reviewers to respond to the editor's initial contact with them
as soon as possible but no later than 24 hours, and with their review report within
15 days unless otherwise agreed with the editor.
While writing your report please consider that the authors are most likely to have
put enormous efforts in conducting research as well as in writing the manuscript.
Therefore, aim your report to be critical but constructive and avoid using offensive
and discouraging language. In most cases reviewer's a report is conveyed to the
authors as such. However, in rare case if we feel that a reviewer has used unfair
language or have revealed any confidential information, we may appropriately edit
it. There is a standard form for writing your report. You may complete the standard
form and send it to the editor by email. While making a judgment on a manuscript
we ask you to consider the following points:
Originality: Is the work original and novel? If not why?
Interest: Is the work of general or specialized interest?
Research question: Is the research question clearly defined and answered?
Design: Is the study adequately designed to answer the research question?
Abstract: Does it correctly summarize the study?
Introduction: Does it provide appropriate basis for the study?
Methods: Are methodological details sufficient? Is any presented statistical analysis
appropriate and sound?
Are any additional statistical tests needed?
Results: Are these logically presented and answer the research question?
Discussion: Is the literature appropriately and fairly cited? Are the result clearly
discussed in the light of published literature?
Conclusions: Are the claims and inferences drawn from study justified and convincing
or do they need
further evidence? Please explain. Should the authors have drawn any
from the presented data?
References: Are they up to date and relevant? Has any relevant reference been omitted?
Ethical issue: Does the research raise any ethical concerns regarding the use of
animal or human subjects?
Overall readability: Is the manuscript clearly and concisely written? If not how
could it be improved?
Could it be shortened?
Reviewers are welcome to recommended acceptance or rejection of an article. However,
the primary purpose of the review is to provide editors with the analytical argument
to help them reach a decision. Therefore, if we have decided against a negative
or positive recommendation of a reviewer, it does not imply in any way our lack
of confidence in the reviewer's opinion or disregard for the reviewer's expertise.
It is likely that the other reviewers may have expressed opposite views and, therefore,
quite often we have to base our decisions on conflicting reports, one way or the
A timely return of the reviewers' recommendations is crucial to the publishing process.
Late return of reviews is the main element that delays publication.
We hope that you will strive to bring to each review your considered expertise,
to judge each paper with
an open mind, and to find the right point between judging too permissively
and too strictly.