Guide for reviewers
Introduction
Quality peer reviews are essential for insuring the quality of scholarly journals. Your evaluation will play a major role in our decision as to whether to accept a manuscript for publication. We trust you to be prompt, fair, respectful of the rights of the authors, and to evaluate the manuscript in depth. We are very grateful for the time and effort you invest in the review process. Reviewers should keep manuscripts and the information they contain strictly confidential. Reviewers must not publicly discuss authors’ work and must not appropriate authors’ ideas before the manuscript is published.
Comments and Criticism to the Author/Editor
Identify the major contributions of the paper.
What are its major strengths and weaknesses, and its suitability for publication?
Please include both general and specific comments, and address the following key points:
Conflicts of interest
Reviewers should declare their conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists.
Topic
Is the topic of interest and relevant for the Journal?
Title
Does the title reflect the content of the article?
Originality
Is the work original, new and important? If not, please give references
Abstract
Does it contain the essential information of the article and cover the various aspects of the work:
objective, methods, results and conclusion?
Introduction
Is the study rationale adequately described?
Objectives
Are the objectives and hypothesis clearly stated? Is the work relevant and new? Have significant
part of the paper already been published elsewhere?
Methodology
Is the work scientifically interesting, rigorous, accurate and correct? Is the study design
appropriate for the objectives? Is the sample size appropriate and adequately justified? Is the sampling technique appropriate and adequately described? How well are the methods and instruments of data collection described? How well are the techniques to minimize bias/errors documented?
Ethical considerations
For studies including human or animal subjects, has the study been approved by the relevant research and ethics committee? Has consent been obtained for studies including patient data? Have any conflicts of interest (financial or other) been clearly stated?
Analysis and Results
Did the study test the hypothesis? Was the study adequately controlled? Are the methods of data analysis appropriate? Are the findings presented logically? Are the diagrams, tables, figures and captions appropriate and clear?
Statistics
Are appropriate statistical methods used? Is the statistical significance well documented (e.g. as confidence intervals or p-values) or correlation coefficient)? Is it correct and appropriate?
Discussion
Is the discussion relevant to the study? Is it easy to understand and read? Is the work set well in the context of previous work? How well are the key findings discussed? To what extent have differences or similarities with other studies been discussed and reasons for these given? Are the implications of the findings clearly articulated?
Conclusion
Do the results justify the conclusion/s? Is the conclusion carefully written, summarizing what has been learnt and why it is interesting and useful? Is the conclusion supported enough?
References
Are they appropriate and relevant? Are all pertinent references cited? Are they up to date? Are there any errors?
Writing Style
Is the overall balance and structure of the paper good? Is the length of the paper appropriate for the content? Is the paper clearly written? Are there language errors? Is the paper presented logically (e.g. correct information in each section, logical flow of arguments, well organization)? Data presentation When results are stated in the text of the paper, can you easily verify them by examining tables and figures? Are any of the results counterintuitive? Are all tables and figures necessary(?), clearly labeled(?), well planned(?), and readily interpretable?
Errors
Are there any errors in technique, fact, calculation, interpretation, or style?
