NMB ’reviewers’ opinions of manuscripts are invaluable in helping Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board in making correct decisions. Besides helping in assessment of the value and quality of a manuscript for the scientific literature and NMB in particular, reviewers help authors improve their manuscripts by suggesting areas for the authors to address. Double anonymous peer review will help you keep up with the field and get new understandings that will improve the quality and value of your own studies. You will provide a valuable service to the readers by improving the quality of published papers anywhere they get published. In appreciation of your invaluable service to NMB, your name will be included in a list we publish on the webpage of reviewers who have reviewed for NMB. In addition, reviewers who consistently exhibit excellent reviews and respond promptly to the editorial requests are considered for invitation to the Editorial Board.
Important points for reviewing a manuscript
Novelty, scientific reliability, originality, the valuable contribution to the science, adding new aspects to the existed field of study, ethical aspects, structure of the article submitted and its relevance to the authors’ guidelines, references provided to substantiate the content, grammar, punctuation, and spelling, and scientific misconduct should be checked by reviewers.
Please consider the below comments for refereeing a manuscript
- Special comments on the manuscripts could be sent to editors if they are inappropriate to be clarified to authors.
- The comments sent to editors should be in consistent level with those sent to authors.
- A review in dedicated time will benefit the entire scientific community.
- The manuscripts should be reviewed impartially and objectively.
- Reviewers must decline refereeing the manuscripts that is in the area of interest of the reviewer, is the financial interest of him or her, is a field that the reviewer is now working on, or if the reviewer has contacted the author recently. This information is uttered in the “request for review” email sent to reviewer; otherwise after receiving the manuscript, the reviewer should inform the editor in order to inhibit subjective reviewing.
- Before publication, information in manuscripts should be held confidential.
- Reviewers must not use unpublished information in manuscripts as a resource in their research.
- In the case of accepting reviewing a manuscript, this is a request of the reviewers to re-review the future revisions of the manuscript. Of course, reviewing revisions will be handled by the editorial board as it is possible due to restricting extra burden on reviewers.
- Identity of reviewers must not be declared to authors.
- To facilitate the evaluation processes, the reviewers are recommended to apply the online reviewing services provided. Please enter your code number and password to open your private page.