+ 46 (0) 73-76 94 283
The reviewer report should comprehensively critique the submission and consist of much more than a few brief sentences. SJBSR does not require a specific structure for reports, however, a suggested format is:
We encourage reviewers to help authors improve their manuscript. The report should give constructive analysis to authors, particularly where revisions are recommended. Where reviewers do not wish authors to see certain comments, these can be added to the confidential comments to the Editor.
While expectations vary by discipline, some core aspects that should be critiqued by reviewers may include:
Are the research questions valid?
Is the sample size sufficient?
Is there necessary ethical approval and/or consent and was the research ethical?
Are the methods and study design appropriate for answering the research question?
Do the experiments have appropriate controls?
Is the reporting of the methods, including any equipment and materials, sufficiently detailed that the research might be reproduced?
Are any statistical tests used appropriate and correctly reported?
Are the figures and tables clear and do they accurately represent the results?
Has previous research by the authors and others been discussed and have those results been compared to the current results?
Are there any inappropriate citations, for example, not supporting the claim being made or too many citations to the authors’ own articles?
Do the results support the conclusions?
Are limitations of the research acknowledged?
Is the abstract an accurate summary of the research and results, without spin?
Is the language clear and understandable?
To help authors receive timely reviews, reviewer reports should be submitted on or before the agreed deadline. Reviewers should contact SJBSR if they are unable to meet the deadline so an alternative date can be arranged.
We encourage reviewers to focus their reports on objectively critiquing the scientific aspects of the submission, including the soundness of the methodology and whether the conclusions can be supported by the results. Comments may also be given on novelty and the potential impact of the work. At the end of their review, we ask reviewers to recommend one of the following actions:
Accept without modifications
Consider after Minor Changes
Consider after Major Changes
Reject: Manuscript is not sufficiently novel
However, it is important to note that the overall decision will be made by the Editor.
Manuscripts under peer review should be strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscripts or discuss their content with anyone outside the peer review process.
Reviewers will be anonymous to the authors unless they choose to disclose their identity by signing the review report.
©2020 All Right Reserved Sjbsr - Designed And Developed By Graphimonta