For Reviewers

Notify the editor promptly if you cannot review a manuscript due to lack of expertise, conflicts of interest, or availability.
Inform the editor of any potential competing interests that could influence your review.
Adhere to the journal’s timeline for completing reviews. Request an extension if needed.

Judge the manuscript objectively based solely on scientific merit, not subjective opinions.
Carefully evaluate the background/rationale, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions.
Assess the rigor, validity, and significance of experimental design, data analysis, and findings.
Consider reproducibility and transparency of methods and data presentation.
Identify gaps, inconsistencies, or errors in data, analysis, or interpretation.
Check that conclusions are well-supported and not exaggerated beyond the results.
Compare against literature - does the work enhance existing knowledge?
Watch for issues with plagiarism, ethics, or authorship.

Provide detailed, constructive feedback on the strengths/weaknesses of the manuscript.
Write clearly and professionally. Comments should be objective and specific, not derogatory.
Recommend logical improvements to study design, data presentation, analysis methods, etc.
Cite relevant references where applicable to support your critiques.
Maintain confidentiality and do not share or discuss the manuscript with colleagues.

Return your completed reviewer form/comments by the journal's requested deadline.
Recommend acceptance, rejection, or revisions based on your assessment. Justify your recommendation.
Notify the editor if you cannot meet the deadline and request an extension.