For Reviewers

The unpublished manuscript is a privileged document.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 the acceptability of a paper in your comments for transmission to the author, but advise the editor on the review feedback sheet provided.
In making your recommendation to the journal Editors, consider the manuscript under review using the Scientific and Quality Assessment table based on the National Institutes of Health guidelines which can be found here.
In your review, please consider the following aspects of the manuscript as far as they are applicable:

Scientific reliability;
Importance (clinical or otherwise) of the question or subject studied;
Originality (truly original or known to you through specialist publications);
Adequacy of abstract, keywords;
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?
Are results relevant to the problem posed? Are the results credible, and well presented?
The soundness of conclusions and interpretation. Are the interpretation and conclusions warranted by the data? Reasonable speculation? Is the message clear?
Relevance of the discussion;
References up to date and relevant? Are there any glaring omissions?
The relevance of the figures and table, clarity of legends and titles.
Suitability for the journal and overall recommendations. Is it appropriate for general readership or more appropriate for a specialist journal?
If not acceptable can the paper be improved and how;?
Ethical aspects: does the paper have major ethical problems?; and
Overall presentation (including writing style, clarity of writing, including figures and tables)

In comments intended for the author, criticism should be presented dispassionately and constructively, and abrasive remarks should be avoided.
Suggested revisions should be couched as such, and not expressed as conditions of acceptance. Please distinguish between revisions considered essential and those judged as merely desirable.
Even if we do not accept a paper we would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the author to improve it and potentially submit elsewhere. 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 mistakes/s in grammar, but any help in this regard will be appreciated.
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 honor all of his or her recommendations.
Please check for plagiarism using the link provided https://www.plagramme.com

*(These guidelines are based on the guidelines provided by Council of Science Editors).