European Journal of Translational and Clinical Medicine

Expand

Guidelines for Reviewers


The Reviewer is responsible for critically reading and evaluating a manuscript that is within his/her field of research, as well as providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to the authors. It is the role of the Reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, to suggest ways to improve it, and to evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.


Before Reviewing

Does the manuscript match your expertise?

If you receive a manuscript that covers a topic that does not sufficiently match your area of expertise, please notify the Editor as soon as possible and feel free to recommend another Reviewer.

Do you have time to review the paper?

Reviews of an article should be completed within two weeks. If you do not think you can complete the review within this time frame, please let the Editor know and suggest another reviewer.

Are there any potential conflicts of interests?

While conflicts of interest will not disqualify you from reviewing the manuscript, it is important to disclose all conflicts of interest to the editors before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interests, please do not hesitate to contact the receiving editorial office.


The Review

Scope: Is the article in line with the aims and scope of the European Journal of Translational and Clinical Medicine?

Content Quality and Originality: Is the article in line with the aims and scope of the European Journal of Translational and Clinical Medicine?

Title: Does it clearly describe the article?

Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?

Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated?
The introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors' findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es) and the general experimental design or method.

Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the research question/s? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded? Are the authors precise in describing measurements?

Results: This is where the authors should explain in words what they discovered. This should be clearly presented and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Authors' interpretation of results should not be included in this section.

Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?

Tables, Figures, Images: Are they appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand?


Final Comments

Please do NOT contact the authors directly.

All submissions are confidential and please do not discuss any aspect of the submissions with a third party. If you would like to discuss the article with a colleague, please ask the Editor first.

Any suggestion that the author includes citations to Reviewers’ (or their associates’) work must be for genuine scientific reasons and not just to increase the Reviewers’ citation counts.


Ethical Issues

Plagiarism: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the Editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible.

Fraud: If you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the Editor

Has confidentiality been maintained? Has there been a violation of the accepted norms in the ethical treatment of animal or human subjects? If so, then these should also be identified to the Editor


Your recommendation

Please complete the “Reviewer’s Comments” form by the due date to the Editorial office. Your recommendation regarding an article will be strongly considered when the editors make the final decision, and your thorough, honest feedback will be much appreciated.

Reject: (explain reason in report)

Accept: without revision

Major or minor revision: (explain the extent of revision that is required and indicate to the editor whether or not you would like to review the revised article)

When writing comments, please indicate the section of comments intended for only the editors and the section of comments that can be returned to the author(s). Please don't hesitate to contact the Editorial office with any questions or concerns you may have.


Your decision

Please complete the "Reviewer Checklist" form by the due date to the Editorial office.

Your recommendation regarding an article will be strongly considered when the editors make the final decision, and your thorough, honest feedback will be much appreciated. Choose one of the following decisions:

  • Accepted without revision
  • Accepted with minor revision (explain the extent of revision that is required)
  • Accepted with major revision (explain the extent of revision that is required)
  • Rejected - your manuscript does not offer a significant or novel contribution to the existing knowledge on this subject. The EJTCM will not further consider your manuscript for publish.
  • Rejected - your manuscript describes a study design that is seriously flawed. The EJTCM will not further consider your manuscript for publish.

Please don't hesitate to contact the Editorial office with any questions or concerns you may have.