Guidelines for Reviewers

An unpublished manuscript is a privileged document. Please protect it from any form of exploitation. Don’t cite a manuscript or refer to the work it describes before it has been published and don’t use the information that it contains for the advancement of your own research or in discussions with colleagues. 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, please return it immediately to the editor. Reviews must be completed within 3 weeks. If you know that you cannot finish the review within that time, immediately return the manuscript to the editor.
In your review, consider the following aspects of the manuscript: –Adherence to style of the MS as set forth in Instructions to Authors of Biosc Biotech Res Comm.

• Adequacy of title, abstract and its contents. Language and expression of findings in the manuscript.
• Significance of research questions or subject studied.
• Originality of work: It should be checked through standard plagiarism software only.
• Appropriateness of approach or methodology and adequacy of experimental techniques.
• Appropriateness of figures and or tables and length of article.
• Experimental data its presentation and interpretation.
• Soundness of conclusions and interpretation and relevance of discussion of the manuscript.
• Appropriate literature citations as per Harvard Style of References with updated references.

Any help you can give in clarifying meaning in the manuscript will be appreciated. We prefer reviewers to use the manuscript comment review system, enabling the authors to make the necessary changes as suggested by the reviewers, which can be later checked for compliance.

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. 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.

A significant number of authors have not learnt how to organize data and will be benefit from your guidance. Do not discuss the paper with its authors. 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.

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. 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.

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.

Reviewer’s recommendations are gratefully received by the editor. However, since editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, reviewers should not expect the editor to honour every recommendation.