Guidelines for peer reviewed
Please review the manuscript as you would want one of your manuscripts reviewed. Provide as many constructive comments and useful recommendations as possible. Provide the reasons for your evaluation of the manuscript.
As a reviewer you have the responsibility for providing a constructive, well-reasoned appraisal of manuscripts phrased in the spirit of professional courtesy. For each manuscript you should be able to provide a clear and definite answer to the following questions:
- 1.Has any material in this article been published previously? If so, please supply details to the editor.
- 2.Is the research of adequate significance (new findings, confirms or contradicts other work) to warrant publication?
- 3.Is the research scientifically sound?
The following outline derived from information in the Council of Biology
Editors Style Manual may assist you in your evaluation of a manuscript.
- i. Is the title appropriate and clear?
- i. Is it specific and representative of the article?
- ii. Is the motive for the research indicated?
- i. Identify subject, is the subject of the article clearly identified?
- ii. Orient research to previous concepts and research.
- iii. Is the objective and/or hypothesis important for the area of research?
4. Materials and Methods
- i. Design, is the design appropriate for the purpose of the study?
- ii. Model, is the statistical analysis clearly presented with the most appropriate method for
- iii. treatment comparisons?
- iv. Subject(s), are all plants and chemicals identified?
- v. Materials, are the materials used in study adequate?
- vi. Procedures, is there sufficient detail to enable the reader to duplicate the procedures?
- vii. Methods for observations and interpretation.
- i. Are the results presented in a logical sequence to support the hypothesis?
- ii. Are the tabular data summarized or merely repeated in the text?
- i. Interpret data presented in Results in a succinct manner. Are there errors of fact or interpretation?
- i. Relate findings to previous research. Is the relationship between the results and previous work relevant?
- ii. Has the author cited all and only pertinent literature?
- iii. Reasons for differences in results.
- iv. Implications for practical application and future research.
- i. Are conclusions stated briefly in a logical order?
- ii. Considerable time can be saved by entering spelling corrections, grammatical suggestions, and word rearrangements directly on the manuscript.