Reviewer Guidelines

What is Peer Review?

Peer review involves the evaluation of a written document by individuals who possess comparable competencies and expertise within the corresponding field. This method is employed to appraise the excellence of a document before its official publication. Professionals with independent research backgrounds in the pertinent field scrutinize submitted documents for factors such as originality, validity, and significance. Their insights aid editors in making informed decisions about whether to include the work in their journal.

How does it work?

Following manuscript submission, the editorial team assesses its compliance with journal criteria. If eligible, it enters peer review, where experts in the same field evaluate and offer feedback. This process aims to enhance the manuscript's quality, ensuring it meets the publication standards set by the journal.

Double-blind peer review

The journal employs a double-blind peer review system, ensuring anonymity between authors and reviewers. This approach prioritizes the integrity and quality of the work, with evaluations grounded in content and merit rather than author reputation or background. This process fosters unbiased assessment and upholds the standards of scholarly rigor and fairness in academic publishing.

Considerations for Reviewers:

  • Expertise Alignment: Only accept review invitations when possessing competence and experience in the designated field.
  • Time Evaluation: Ensure adequate time (averaging 4-6 hours) is available before the deadline to conduct a comprehensive review.
  • Declaration of Interests: Disclose any potential conflicts that might impact judgment or objectivity to maintain transparency and ethical review practices.

Peer Review Checklist:

  1. Title: Does it accurately represent the manuscript's subject/hypothesis?
  2. Abstract: Does it summarize the manuscript effectively?
  3. Keywords: Do they reflect the manuscript's focus?
  4. Background: Does the manuscript adequately describe the study's background, present status, and significance?
  5. Methods: Are research methods detailed, sound, and appropriate? Is statistical analysis fitting?
  6. Results: Are research objectives achieved? Does the manuscript meet Biostatistics requirements?
  7. Discussion: Does it interpret findings appropriately and highlight key points?
  8. Illustrations and Tables: Are they sufficient, high-quality, and illustrative?
  9. References: Are citations appropriate and up-to-date?
  10. Manuscript Quality: Is it well-organized, concise, and coherent? Is language accurate?
  11. Ethics Statements: Does the manuscript meet ethical requirements?

Additional Considerations for Reviewers:

  • Language: Minor grammatical errors can be noted but don't need correction.
  • Previous Research: Verify if the manuscript references prior works correctly and includes important ones.
  • Ethical Issues: Report plagiarism or potential fraud and identify any ethical concerns.

Guidelines for Reviewers:

  • Initial Assessment by Editors: Editors determine if the manuscript is suitable, original, and interesting for the journal. If accepted, it is assigned to reviewers; if not, revisions are requested for resubmission.
  • Reviewer Invitations: Handling editors invite reviewers with expertise in the same field. Additional invitations are sent until the required number of acceptances is obtained.
  • Response from Reviewers: Potential reviewers assess their expertise, conflicts, and availability before accepting or declining. They may suggest alternative reviewers when declining.
  • Review Process: Reviewers read the manuscript multiple times, offering an initial impression and detailed point-by-point feedback. Recommendations for acceptance, rejection, or revision are provided.
  • Editorial Review: Editors evaluate all returned reviews and may seek additional opinions for divergent feedback. They communicate decisions to authors, including relevant reviewer comments.
  • Acceptance Confirmation: Accepted manuscripts proceed to production for copyediting, proofreading, and quality checks. Rejected papers are justified to authors, with constructive feedback for improvement or resubmission.
  • Post Acceptance: After approval, the paper undergoes production processes, including copyediting and galley proof sharing with authors. The final decision by the Editor-in-Chief leads to online and print publication.