Writing the review

Reviewers must assess the article within time limits as agreed with secretary and send the review report or motivated refuse to the editorial office (via mail or e-mail). The reviewers provide written reports which include:

· Assessment of subject and possibility of its publishing in the journal

· Assessment of content: evidence, novelty, significance and importance of conclusions.

· Notes on text presentation and article design.

· Recommendations on improving the text.

The reviewers are offered to answer the following questions to provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript: 

  1. Is the submission original?
  2. Does the paper fit the scope of the journal?
  3. Would the paper be of interest to the readership of the journal?
  4. Does the paper help to expand or further research in this subject area?
  5. Does it significantly build on (the author’s) previous work?
  6. Do you feel that the significance and potential impact of a paper is high or low?
  7. Does the manuscript have flaws which should prohibit its publication? If so, please provide details.
  8. Is the paper complete? Is there an abstract or summary of the work undertaken as well as a concluding section?
  9. Is the title of the article appropriate and clear?
  10. Is the abstract clear, accessible, and in the correct form?
  11. Is the purpose of the article made clear in the introduction?
  12. Is the methodology presented in the manuscript and any analysis provided both accurate and properly conducted? Is the reporting of data and methodology sufficiently detailed and transparent to enable reproducing the results?
  13. Are the statistical methods appropriate?
  14. Do you find that the conclusions and data interpretation are robust, valid and reliable?
  15. Is all of the discussion relevant?
  16. Are all relevant accompanying data, citations, or statistics given by the author?
  17. Does this manuscript reference previous literature appropriately? If not, what references should be included or excluded?
  18. Should it be added experiments or data that could help strengthening the work in a revision?