Guidelines for Reviewers
The primary aim of these guidelines is to ensure that reviewers know their responsibilities and can prepare constructive critiques that will assist authors in their scientific research regardless of the outcome (Acceptance/Rejection/Revision) of the peer-review process. The guidelines are organized in 10 essential points, followed by a more detailed description of each of the points raised; we hope you find them useful.
Essential points
- Critically evaluate each manuscript regarding:
-its suitability for the International Journal of Pediatrics and Genetics.
-its novelty and general interest for readers of the International Journal of Pediatrics and Genetics.
-the validity of the experiments described
-the statistical analysis: is it included, complete and have appropriate tests been used?
-the conclusions drawn: are they warranted?
-whether the literature has been adequately cited and discussed
- Provide specific, constructive criticism that gives clear guidance to the authors, especially if recommending revision i.e. it should be clear to the authors precisely what experiments/revisions need to be undertaken to satisfy the reviewer’s concerns
- Do not be overly demanding, remember the revision timeframe is only 1 month. (3 months if especially time-consuming experiments have been requested)
- Make a clear recommendation: is the manuscript worth revising?
- Comment on whether the presentation/language hinders/confuses an otherwise potentially good paper.
- Treat all information as confidential.
- Declare all conflicts of interest.
- Provide the names of all involved in reviewing the manuscript.
- Detail any scientific misconduct detected.
- For revised manuscripts, do not raise any new issues that could have been commented on in the original review.
