Peer Review Policy
All articles submitted to the journal are subject to strict, double-blind peer review. We send articles to the subject experts and take their objective opinion on the quality of the content, article structure and language correctness by an innovative reviewer form. We are disclosing here review parameters so that authors can understand the review process and its efficiency.
- Do reviewer has any conflict of interest when reviewing this paper? Did he reviewed (and rejected) this article before? If so, he/she need to decline this peer review and let the editors know.
- Do the title and abstract cover key aspects of the work, would it spark interest to the right audience?
- Is the Introduction easy to follow for most readers of this particular journal? Does it cite the appropriate papers? Does it provide a hypothesis or aim of the study?
- Does the Methods section provide enough details for the general reader to repeat the experiments?
- If reviewer skips the Methods, does the Results section give the right amount of detail to understand the essential particulars of the experiments?
- Do the Results refer to the figures in a logical order? Do the numbers in the tables add up correctly? Are any figures/tables mislabeled or unclear?
- Given the data that was obtained in this study, did the authors perform all the logical analyses? Did they include the proper controls?
- Does the Discussion address the main findings, and does it give proper recognition to similar work in this field?
- In general, is the paper easy to follow and does it have a logical flow? Are there any language issues?
- Did the authors make all their data (e.g. sequence reads, code, questionnaires used) available for the readers?
- Is this paper novel and an advancement of the field, or have other people done very similar work?
- Finally (and hopefully reviewer will never have to answer yes to any of these questions): Does the paper raise any ethical concerns? Any suspicion of plagiarism (text or experiments), duplicated or tampered images, unethical animal experiments, or "dual use of research interest"?
Feedback: We welcome the opinion of authors and their feedback on our review policy. If you have any idea on how to improve this procedure, please contact us at email@example.com