rev_instructions

                                                   Reviewer Instructions

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

 

Review Process

  • The manuscript submission and editorial review process includes the following steps:
– An author submits a manuscript to e-mal: brzezoo77@yahoo.com
– The manuscript is assigned to an editor, who reviews the manuscript and makes an initial decision based on manuscript quality and editorial priorities.
– For those manuscripts sent for external peer review, the editor assigns reviewers to the manuscript.
– The reviewers review the manuscript.
– The editor makes a final decision based on editorial priorities, manuscript quality, reviewer recommendations, and perhaps discussions with fellow editors.
– The decision letter is sent to the author.
 
  • Review Manuscript
The file is broken into 7 parts (Sections) as follows:
Section I (Information about Reviewer and Manuscript)
Section II (Declaration – conflict of interest in relation to the position of publishing peer-reviewed)
Section III (Information as close to current scientific interests of the reviewer is its subject matter)
Section IV (Comments per Section of Manuscript)
Section V (The rate)
Section VI (Recommendation)
Section VII (Additional Comments)

 

For Reviewiers:

Questionnaire  Yes No Not applicable 
Does the manuscript contain new and significant information to justify publication?              
Does the Abstract (Summary) clearly and accurately describe the content of the article?       
Is the problem significant and concisely stated?       
Are the experimental and/or theoretical methods described comprehensively?       
Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?       
Is adequate reference made to other work in the field?       
Is the language acceptable?       

 

 
Please rate the priority for publishing this article (1 is the highest priority,
10 is the lowest priority) 
                                 
 
Manuscript Structure 
Length of article is:          
Number of tables is:   
Number of figures is:  
 
Recommendation    
Accept        
Minor Revision   
Major Revision   
Reject   
 
Comments:
Confidential Comments to the Editor:
 

 

Comments critics to the authors: 

  1. Do the work add knowledge to the readers? 
  2. Is this a new contribution and original? 
  3. Does the article is coherent and reflects the contents ? 
  4. is the summary appropiate to get a comprehensive idea of the article? 
  5. Is the article organize by topics?  
  6. Is any part of the publicacition that requieres clarification and or addtion? 
  7. Does the article need to include any relevant? 
  8. Are all the iamgenes relevant for the publication? 
  9. Are the legends and figures clear and complete? 
  10. Do the objective and conclusion are cophernet and justified  based on the data presented? 
  11. Are the references current? 
  12. Other suggestions to improve the article?.
  13. The article should be: accepted, rejected, etc


CONTENT

SERVICES

Other Resources

Our Dermatology Online

Home
Current Issue
All Issues
Instruction for authors
Submit Manuscripts
Ethics in Publishing
For Reviewers
Readers
About
Editors & Publishers 
Statistics
Copyright
Contact Us