General referee guidelines

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
 

General referee guidelines

  1. These Guidelines describe the general peer-review requirements for ESRAPM Publishing’s own journals and many of the journals published on behalf of its partner organizations.
  2. Minor variations do exist and any journal-specific guidelines can be found in the Referee Guidelines link within each refereeing task.
  3. Thank you for acting as a referee for our journals and the communities that they serve. We rely on the expertise of our reviewers and their reports to maintain the quality of each journal.
  4. When a manuscript is sent to you for refereeing you will receive: a report form to complete the Referee Guidelinesfor the journal and article in question.
  5. You will also be asked to confirm that you are able to report, and whether you are able to do so by the given deadline or if you would like an extension.
  6. It is important that you let us know as soon as possible whether or not you will be able to review the article, as we will not usually select an alternative referee until we have heard from you, and this can cause delays in publication.

Guidelines for referees: Papers

  1. As well as completing the report form, we ask that you supply comments suitable for transmission to the authors.
  2. It would be of great help if you can address the following key points when you assess the article and write your report. The motivation and relevance of the work are particularly important.

Scientific merit: Is the work scientifically rigorous, accurate and correct?

Appropriateness: Is the material appropriate for the journal?

Clarity: 

  1. Are ideas expressed clearly and concisely?
  2. Are the concepts understandable?
  3. Is the discussion written in a way that is easy to read and understand?

Referencing: 

  1. Has the author made reference to the most recent and most appropriate work?
  2. Is the present work set in the context of the previous work?

Balance: 

  1. Do you think the overall balance and structure of the paper is good?
  2. Should the authors concentrate more on a specific area of the paper, or are there sections which are unnecessary and which could be reduced or eliminated?

English: In general, you do not need to make corrections to the English in an article. It is, however, helpful if you correct the English where the scientific meaning is unclear. ESRAPM Publishing’s production staff will ensure that spelling, punctuation, grammar and format are corrected when the article is accepted for publication.

 

Originality:

  1. Is the work relevant and novel?
  2. Does the work contain significant additional material to that already published?
  3. If you feel that the work presented is unoriginal, it is useful if you can supply references for transmission to the authors.
  4. Is this paper likely to be cited in future?

Motivation: Does the problem considered have a sound motivation? All papers should clearly demonstrate the scientific interest of the results. Papers should not rely solely on previous literature or novelty to motivate publication.

Repetition: Have significant parts of the manuscript already been published? Serial publications are not encouraged and follow-up papers must contain significant additional new material to that already reported.

Length: 

  1. Is the content of the work of sufficient scientific interest to justify its length?
  2. Each article should be of the shortest length required to contain all useful and relevant information, and no longer.
  3. If you recommend shortening, it is useful to the author(s) if you can indicate specific areas where you think that reduction is required.

 

Title: Is it adequate and appropriate for the content of the article?

Abstract: 

  1. Does it contain the essential information of the article?
  2. Is it complete?
  3. Is it suitable for inclusion by itself in an abstracting service?

Diagrams:

  1. figures, tables and captions: Are they essential and clear?
  2. Text statistics and mathematics: Are they brief but still clear?
  3. If you recommend shortening, please suggest what should be omitted.

Conclusion: Does the paper contain a carefully written conclusion, summarizing what has been learned and why it is interesting and useful?

Guidelines for referees: 

We ask that you supply comments suitable for transmission to the authors. It would be of great help if you can address the following key points in your assessment. The motivation and relevance of the work are particularly important.

  1. Does the article exhibit a high degree of novelty?
  2. Is the research reported timely?
  3. Are the results significant enough to justify accelerated publication?
  4. Is the paper likely to be of interest to the journal's readership?
  5. Is the paper written in a clear and concise style?

About ESRAPM

ESRAPM, as a new society, is committed to provide attendees with a state-of-the-art experience in

the field of regional anesthesia and pain medicine

© 2015 www.esrapm.com. All Rights Reserved. Designed By www.iso-soft.net

Search