Guidelines for the review

Guidelines for the review

The review must be conducted confidentially, the item you have been asked to review must not be divulged to third parties. To help us protect your identity, please do not reveal your name in the text of the review. You should not contact the author. When submitting your review, please note that your recommendations will contribute to the final decision the editor makes.

You are expected to evaluate the article according to the following items:

Originality

Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to justify publication? Does it add information to the field of knowledge? Does the article adhere to the journal's standards? Is the research question an important one? You may want to do a quick literature search using tools such as Scopus to see if there are any reviews in the field. If the research has been previously discussed, pass on references to those works to the editor.

Structure

Title: Does it clearly describe the article?
Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
Introduction: Does it accurately describe what the author hoped to accomplish and clearly state the problem under study? Does it summarize relevant research to provide context and explain what other authors' findings? Does it describe the experiment, hypothesis(es), and overall experimental design or method?
Method: Does the author explain precisely how the data were collected? Is the design adequate to answer the question posed? Is there sufficient information for you to replicate the research? Does the article detail the procedures followed? Are they arranged in a way that is understandable? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Is the sampling appropriate? Are equipment and materials adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data were recorded and has the author been accurate in describing measurements?
Results and Discussion: Are they clearly stated and in a logical sequence? Is the analysis carried out adequate? Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with the statistics, let the editor know when you submit your report, please. Is what is announced in the discussion supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Do the authors point out the relationship of their results to what is expected and to previous studies? Does the article confirm or contradict previous theories?
Conclusion: Does the conclusion explain how the study contributes to the advancement of scientific knowledge and does it relate to objectives?
Language: If an article is poorly written you should comment it to the editor.

Ethical issues

Plagiarism: if you suspect that an article is largely a copy of another, please let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible.
Fraud: if you suspect that the results of an article are not true, talk to the editor.

Conflict of interest

It is important to remain impartial regarding issues of nationality, political or religious beliefs, gender or other characteristics of authors, origins of a manuscript, or commercial considerations. If you discover a perceived interest that might prevent you from conducting a fair and impartial review, notify the journal. While waiting for a response, avoid looking at the manuscript and associated material in case the review request is revoked. Similarly, notify the journal as soon as possible if you find that you do not have the expertise to evaluate important aspects of a manuscript, so as not to delay the review process. For more details see COPE ethics guidelines for reviewers.