Instructions for Reviewers

DECIDING WHETHER TO REVIEW A MANUSCRIPT

Conflict of Interest
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 you have questions regarding a potential conflict of interest, please contact the Editor in Chief or Coeditors, and they will decide whether it is appropriate to review the manuscript.

If a conflict of interest does not exist, please consider whether you can complete the review within 2 weeks. There are occasions where a reviewer may be unable to complete his/her review within the allotted time due to unforeseen circumstances. In this case, please contact the editor immediately so that arrangements can be made for the review to be completed in a timely fashion.

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

If you realize that a conflict of interest exists after the review process begins, please notify the Editor in chief or one of Coeditors immediately, so another reviewer can be solicited to review the manuscript.

ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS

Confidentiality
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. There are some exceptions, if approved by the editor. One example is that the reviewer may ask a colleague to collaborate on a review. However, your collaborator on the review should also agree to maintain confidentiality, and the editor should be informed of the participation of this additional person.

Reviewer Conduct
Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests. Knowledge of the content of confidential manuscripts should not be used for any other purpose unrelated to the reviewing of the manuscript.
Reporting Concerns
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.

CONSTRUCTING A REVIEW

Rating 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

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.

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

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. These 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
1) originality and scientific importance,
2) adequacy and length of the title,
3) adequacy of the summary,
4) adequacy of introduction,
5) adequacy of material, experimental design and methods,
6) quality of data and presentation of results and the discussion, including figures,
7) appropriateness of the authors' interpretation of their data and
8) inclusion of recent and appropriate references.

If possible, make specific recommendations for revisions.