Reviewer's Guidelines

  1. An unpublished manuscript is a privileged document. Please protect it from any form of exploitation. Do not cite a manuscript or refer to the work it describes before it has been published and do not use the information that it contains for the advancement of your own research or in discussions with colleagues.
  2. Adopt a positive, impartial attitude toward the manuscript under review, with the aim of promoting effective and constructive scientific communication. If you believe that, you cannot judge a given article impartially then please return it immediately to the editor.
  3. Reviews must be completed within 2 weeks. If you know that you cannot finish the review within that time, immediately return the manuscript to the editor.
  4. In your review, consider the following aspects of the manuscript:-
    1. Significance of research question or subject studied.
    2. Appropriateness of approach or Methodology.
    3. Adequacy of experimental techniques.
    4. Soundness of conclusions and interpretation.
    5. Relevance of discussion
    6. Adherence to style as set forth in instructions to authors.
    7. Adequacy of title and abstract.
    8. Appropriateness of figures and tables.
    9. Length of article.
    10. Adherence to correct nomenclature (genetic, enzyme, drug, biochemical etc.
    11. Appropriate literature citations.
  5. Any help you can give in clarifying meaning will be appreciated. If you wish to mark the text of the manuscript, use a pencil or make a photocopy, mark it, and return it together with the original.
  6. You can be particularly helpful in pointing out unnecessary illustrations and data that are presented in both tabular (and graphic) form and in detail in the text. Such redundancies are a waste of space and readers time.
  7. A significant number of authors have not learnt how to organize data and will be benefit from your guidance.
  8. Do not discuss the paper with its authors.
  9. In your comments intended for transmission to the author, do not make any specific statement about the acceptability of a paper. Suggested revision should be stated as such and not expressed as conditions of acceptance. Present criticism dispassionately and avoid offensive remarks.
  10. Organize your review so that an introductory paragraph summarizes the major findings of the article, gives your overall impression of the paper and highlights the major shortcomings. This paragraph should be followed by specific numbered comments, which if appropriate may be subdivided, into major and minor points.
  11. Confidential remarks directed to the editor should be typed (or handwritten) on a separate sheet, not on the review form. You might want to distinguish between revisions considered essential and those judged merely desirable.
  12. Your criticisms, arguments and suggestions concerning the paper will be most useful to the editor and to the author if they are carefully documented. Do not make dogmatic, dismissive statements, particularly about the novelty of work. Substantiate your statements.
  13. The editor gratefully receives reviewer’s recommendations. However, since editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, reviewers should not expect the editor to honor every recommendation.
  14. Categories of recommendation: accept, reject, modify, or convert to some other form. Very few papers qualify for “accept”, upon original submission for publication except for minor style changes.
  15. Keep a copy of the review in your files. The manuscript may be returned to you for a second or third review. You might require this copy to evaluate the author’s responses to your criticisms.
  16. Reviews based on journal style will NOT be considered.
  17. Reviewers are requested to fill all sections of the review form; alternatively, you can get guidance from this document and fill system built-in online option of submitting the review report.


Contact E-Mails


Evaluation Sheet Proforma:

Download docx

Download pdf