Guidelines for reviewers
This page contains information for reviewers about basic considerations when reviewing a manuscript. More information on the journal’s editorial policies and aims and scope can be found at Aims and Scope and Publication Ethics. Reviewers are requested to read the content of this page and relevant information on the other two sections carefully.
Points to consider
Reviewers should consider the following issues when reviewing articles:
After reviewing a manuscript, reviewers should ask themselves if the manuscript has reached a clear conclusion about a problem which can be defined and understood within the boundaries of medical sciences.
Reviewers should ask themselves if they have learned something new after studying the paper under consideration.
The discussion and conclusion of the study should be discussed in an unbiased manner. The interpretation of the obtained data should not be overly positive or negative.
Reviewers may comment on possible modifications or improvements to the study design to enhance the quality of the results. If the methods employed are novel, special attention should be given to the reliability, validity and ethical aspects of it.
The methods employed to conduct the study should be discussed in full detail to be reproduced by peers in the field.
Please do comment on the quality and clarity of the data presented in the manuscript. For instance, If you think the structure of the manuscript has been organized in an illogical manner or it is hard to comprehend for the reader, or if you think the presentation of the data is in such a manner that the clarity would be improved if it was presented through other means, please do write your suggestions in detail. Please do comment if you doubt whether the presented data are genuine or if you think they are of low quality to be published in their present form.
The study should comply with international regulations on human and animal experimentations as well as regulations enforced by the local committees of the countries where the study is done. The authors should declare that they have received ethics approval of local committees as well as informed consent of the patients involved in the study for human experimentations.
If you are aware of any competing interests not adequately addressed by the authors, please inform the Editor-in-Chief.
Nanomedicine Journal follows the rules and guidelines defined by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewers can find more information about COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers at https://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf .