Guidelines for Reviewers when Reviewing Manuscripts

These guidelines encourage reviewers to identify misconduct, raise concerns with the editor, and maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript.

1. Reviewers play a crucial role in upholding the integrity of the scholarly record. They should approach the manuscript with a positive and impartial mindset, aiming to facilitate effective and accurate scientific communication. If a reviewer believes they cannot assess an article impartially, they should promptly return it to the editor with an explanation.
2. Reviews should be completed in a timely manner (within 2-3 weeks). If a reviewer anticipates being unable to meet the specified deadline, they should inform the editor.
3. Reviewers are requested to evaluate the manuscript's quality and provide a recommendation to the external editor (accept, revise, or reject). Invited reviewers should:
   - Accept or decline invitations promptly based on the manuscript's title and abstract.
   - Suggest alternative reviewers if they must decline.
   - Request a deadline extension if more time is needed for comprehensive feedback.
4. Reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could introduce bias for or against the paper or authors. If unsure about a potential conflict, reviewers should contact the journal's Editorial Office.
5. Reviewers should remember that their comments may be included in the decision letter to the author, aiding them in improving the manuscript. When providing feedback:
   - Read the entire article, including figures and tables, if available.
   - Critically analyze the article as a whole and specific sections.
   - Offer detailed comments to ensure authors understand and address the raised points.
   - Maintain a neutral tone and provide constructive criticism.
   - Reviewers are not expected to correct grammar but may help if desired.
6. When reviewing a manuscript, consider various aspects:
   - Importance of the question or subject studied.
   - Scientific reliability.
   - Originality.
   - Appropriateness of approach and experimental design.
   - Relevance and credibility of results.
   - Soundness of conclusions and interpretation.
   - Relevance of the discussion.
   - Currency and relevance of references.
   - Suitability for the journal and overall recommendations.
   - Ethical aspects.
   - Overall presentation, including writing style and clarity.