Peer reviewers are experts who volunteer offer their time to improve the manuscripts they review and to help the Editor-in-Chief to determine whether the manuscript should be published in ActaBiomed. The names of referees will not be made available to authors.

After the Editor-in-Chief invitation to review a submitted paper, the reviewer should consider the following aspects:

  • If there is only one section of the manuscript that you are unfamiliar with, it may be the case for asking to the Editor-in-Chief that other reviewers have the required expertise in this section. the support of an Expert for statistical evaluation, epidemiology data, animal studies etc.).
  • If you have not time to review the manuscript, let us know promptly and if possible suggest alternative reviewers.
  • If you have a potential conflicts of interest please let us know promptly so that we can find an alternative reviewer

Before sending your review to the Editor-in Chief please consider the following items::

  • Are there any aspects missing that would support the claims of this manuscript? Have any aspects not been touched upon that should have been in order to accurately reflect the scientific literature? If yes, please suggest appropriate references.
  • If this is a research manuscript, is the research question important? What value does it add to the scientific literature? If the conclusions are not original, please provide the relevant references. If a review article, does the manuscript offer any new perspectives? Subjectively speaking, would this manuscript be of interest to people of your own discipline and/or other medical disciplines?
  • Do  Title and Abstract reflect the content of the manuscript?
  • Does Introduction describe what the author hopes to achieve? It should summarise the relevant current research and literature to provide context.
  • Are any statistical tests used appropriate? Are probability values accurately described?
  • Are the claims supported by the results or literature reviewed? Does the manuscript/author support or contradict previous theories? Have the authors discussed any limitations to their manuscript?
  • Are they appropriate to the manuscript. Do they inform the reader? Is the meaning of any tables/figures clear? Are they correctly labelled. Are they all necessary? Would additional ones be useful.
  • Areas of the paper which can be removed (if any).

We  kindly ask to peer reviewers to comment fully on all aspects of the manuscript for helping the Editor-in-Chief to make the final decision.

  1. If you believe the manuscript should be rejected or requires substantial revision, it is important to motivate the relevant criticisms. Please note that you are not required to correct style, grammar or spelling as this will be done if the manuscript is accepted, but any help you can give in clarifying the meaning is appreciated.
  2. Feedback should be constructive to the author. For instance, if you are suggesting a significant modification, please note the reasons why and provide supporting references.
  1. Please be clear about which aspects of your review are your opinion and which are based on the scientific literature. Note that as a peer reviewer, you are aiming to comment on the quality and rigour of the work received. If you are suggesting additions, please specify which are necessary/essential to support the claims of the manuscript under review and which simply represent a suggest for future further work.
  2. Peer reviewers can provide confidential comments to the Editorial Team in addition to their comments to the authors. Furthermore, we ask peer reviewers on Editorial Manager whether they are able to look at the manuscript again if major revisions were requested.

Reviewers' conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality

  1. Peer Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could bias opinions of the manuscript and should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists.
  2. Manuscripts sent for review are privileged communications and are the private property of the authors. Therefore, reviewers must respect the author’s rights by not publicly discussing the author’s work or appropriating their ideas before the manuscript is published.
  3. Reviewers must not make copies of the manuscript and are prohibited from sharing them with others.
  4. Reviewers should return or destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting reviews.