1. Make
sure that the topic is at intervals your reach of experience
Thus, if you are associate interventional heart surgeon,
it'd all told chance be best if you declined an opportunity to review a
manuscript involving the pathological process of associate cardiopathy.
2. Browse the abstract initial to ascertain if what the author’s
area unit stating makes logical sense and if it's written during a method
that's perceivable.
Some manuscripts involve wonderful work and fascinating
observations, but they are thus poorly written that it's hard to grasp what the
author is locution. This could be a relatively common drawback with authors
whose linguistic communication isn't English. If the work according at
intervals the manuscript appearance fascinating and valuable, it have to be
compelled to be sent back for written material by a native English speaker or
skilled translator.
3. Confirm if the observation created and reportable are
some things new or if it reproduces antecedently created observations?
Clearly, the lot of original the observation, the lot of
most likely the manuscript ought to be accepted for publication.
4. Examine tables and figures to ascertain if the legends
area unit clear and if the tables and figures demonstrate constant issue that's
explicit within the text.
Frequently, material placed in associate passing table does
not ought to be according well at intervals the results section.
5. Look to ascertain if the applied math analysis is
sensible. area unit the variations reportable within the applied math analysis
of spare magnitude to be of biological or clinical significance?
Sometimes, small statistically vital distinction between two
or extra groups of patients is thus little on be “biologically insignificant.”
6. Examine the ways to create certain the authors knew what
they were doing.
If their laboratory analyses were merely run on a billboard
kit whereas not input from somebody within the hospital or school laboratory,
these results may even be of lower quality and better variability. certify the
study depends on a spare range of patients or measurements. raise a
biostatistician to review the manuscript if there's any question of the
responsibility of the analyses performed.
7. Browse the discussion and see if it is sensible and if it
reflects what the information within the article reports.
Look for unneeded conjecture or unwarranted conclusions that
don't seem to be supported the proof bestowed.
8. Note whether or not the manuscript is pithy and well organized
Most of these I receive could also be shortened with
improvement.
9. Note whether or not the standard of the figures or photos
is adequate for correct replica
If not, raise the journal staff (for example, the managing
editor) what is required. Then, as a locality of your review, you will suggest
that the authors have associate knowledgeable at their establishment reformat
the figures to satisfy the desired necessities.
10. Please take this job seriously.
It is knowledgeable honor to be invited to review a
scientific manuscript; the journal's name depends partly on this critique
method.
5 Reasons to Take a Break Publishers
Has the author neglected to follow the directions that area unit a part of your journal's submission criteria?
Is the manuscript choked with typographic errors or mistakes in references, implying a sloppy job of swing it together?
Was there acceptable consent >> (human experiments) with documentation that a person's or animal protection committee reviewed the protocol before the initiation of the study?
Are there potential conflicts of interest either declared or not declared however known by the reviewer? If the review is not unsighted, i.e., you recognize UN agency the authors area unit, do they need a "track record" of operating during this space, and area unit they from a well-thought-of institution?
