Review Guidelines

  • Does the reviewer have any conflict of interest when reviewing this paper? Did he collaborate with these authors, are they his/her personal friends, or are they direct competitors? 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 study/experiments?
  • If the author 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?
  • 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"?