|The unpublished manuscript
is a privileged document. Please protect it from any form of exploitation.
Reviewers are expected not to cite a manuscript or refer to the work it
describes before it has been published, and to refrain from using the information
it contains for the advancement of their own research.
A reviewer should consciously
adopt a positive, impartial attitude towards the manuscript under review.
Your position should be that of the author's ally, with the aim of promoting
effective and accurate scientific communication.
If you believe that you cannot
judge a given article impartially, please return the manuscript immediately
to the editor with that explanation.
Reviews should be completed
expeditiously, within 3-4 weeks. If you know that you cannot finish the
review within the time specified, please inform the editor.
A reviewer should not discuss
a paper with its author/s. If you want to consult a colleague or junior
please discuss this with us first.
Please do not make any specific
statement about acceptability of a paper in your comments for transmission
to the author, but advise the editor on sheet provided.
In your review, please consider
the following aspects on the manuscript as far as they are applicable:
The editor gratefully receives
a reviewer's recommendations, but since the editorial decisions are usually
based on evaluations derived from several sources, a reviewer should not
expect the editor to honour his or her every recommendation.
Importance (clinical or otherwise)
of the question or subject studied
Originality (truly original
or known to you through foreign or specialist publications or through the
Adequacy of abstract, key words.
Appropriateness of approach
or experimental design, adequacy of experimental techniques (including
statistics where appropriate, need for statistical assessment). Methods
adequately described? Appropriate? Patients studied adequately described
and their condition defined?
Results relevant to problem
posed? Credible? Well presented?
Soundness of conclusions and
interpretation. Interpretation and conclusions warranted by the data? Reasonable
speculation? Is the message clear?
Relevance of discussion
References up to date and relevant?
Any glaring omissions?
Relevance of the figures and
table, clarity of legends and titles.
Suitability for the journal
and overall recommendations. Appropriate for general readership or more
appropriate for specialist journal?
If not acceptable can the paper
be made so?
Overall presentation (including
writing style, clarity of writing)
In comments intended for the
author's, criticism should be presented dispassionately, and abrasive remarks
Suggested revisions should be
couched as such, and not expressed as conditions of acceptance. Please
distinguish between revisions considered essential and those judged merely
Even if we do not accept a paper
we would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the author
to improve it. For this reason please give detailed comments (with references,
if appropriate) that will help both the editors to make a decision on the
paper and the authors to improve it.
Your criticism, arguments, and
suggestions concerning that paper will be most useful to the editor if
they are carefully documented.
You are not requested to correct
mistake/s in grammar, but any help in this regard will be appreciated.