For reviewers
Reviewer Guidelines
A review is a piece of scholarly work in its own right. It says what the manuscript establishes, what it does not yet establish, and what would close the gap.
- ISSN 2374-9431
- Publisher Open Access Pub
- Access Open access
- Review Peer-reviewed
What a review should cover
Address the manuscript in front of you. The question is whether the evidence supports the claim, not whether you would have done the study differently.
- The question
- Is it stated clearly, and does it belong to this journal’s remit?
- The method
- Is it described in enough detail to be repeated? For computational work that means data sources, software and versions, parameters and the comparison used; for experimental work, materials, design, controls and sample size.
- The analysis
- Are the statistical or computational choices appropriate, and are the assumptions behind them stated?
- The results
- Do the figures and tables show what the text says they show?
- The claims
- Do the conclusions reach further than the evidence allows? A result obtained in one model, cohort or dataset is a result about that model, cohort or dataset.
- The literature
- Is relevant prior work cited and fairly represented, including work that disagrees?
- Reporting
- Are the declarations, ethics statements and data-availability statement present and consistent with the study described?
- The writing
- Is it clear enough for a reader in the other half of the journal’s remit to follow?
Proportionality matters more than severity. A methods paper is not asked for clinical evidence, and a clinical study is not asked for an algorithmic contribution. Each is asked whether it supports what it claims.
Obligations
Accepting a review is accepting these four things.
Confidentiality
A manuscript under review is confidential. Do not share it, discuss it with anyone not named as a co-reviewer, or use its content for any purpose before publication.
Competing interests
Decline where you have a financial interest, a recent collaboration, a shared institution or any other relationship that a reader would consider relevant. Tell the editor why, so a suitable reviewer can be found.
Manuscript files
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
Use of AI
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
The review model and your report
How the journal runs review, and what happens to what you write.
- Model
- Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
- Double-blind manuscripts
- For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
- Independent reviewers
- Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
- The decision
- Your report advises the editor; it does not decide. Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
- Tone
- Write what you would want to receive: specific, evidence-based and addressed to the work. Separate what must change from what you would prefer.
- If you cannot complete it
- Tell the editorial office as early as you can, so the manuscript is not held waiting.
Journal of Bioinformatics and Diabetes · ISSN 2374-9431 · Published by Open Access Pub.