As a peer reviewer for the Einstein Journal of Biology and Medicine (EJBM) you play a vital role in the process of assessing a scientific manuscript. Reviewing offers you the chance to engage in exchange of scientific ideas and to ensure the quality of the information made available to our readership. We understand that reviewing can be challenging and time consuming, and appreciate your efforts and dedication to the process. The following information is provided to aid you during the review process.
You will receive an invitation to review a manuscript: An EJBM Associate Editor will contact you with a request to review a manuscript. The e-mail will include the following information:
- The title of the manuscript
- The abstract of the manuscript
- The due date for the review
Please read the e-mail to decide whether the manuscript is within your area of expertise and if you can complete the review by the date requested. To accept or decline the review request, please reply to the e-mail.
If you decline to review a manuscript: Please let us know why you have declined (e.g. the manuscript is outside your area of expertise, timing, etc.). If possible, please recommend a colleague who might be able to review the manuscript.
If you accepted the review of a manuscript you will receive a follow-up e-mail: All review information will be provided through e-mail from firstname.lastname@example.org. Any review related inquiries or correspondence should be addressed to the this e-mail. If you feel after receiving the manuscript that you will not be able to judge the manuscript impartially due to a conflict of interest or for another reason, please inform the Associate Editor responsible for the manuscript.
Please remember that the manuscript shared with you is a confidential document. Please do not share or cite information from the manuscript or use manuscript findings in your own research.
In your comments to the author, it helpful to organize your review into an introduction summarizing the major findings or points within the manuscript, followed by specific comments in numerical order addressing different suggestions or revisions. Please provide an impartial assessment and avoid subjective or offensive language. Please do not indicate whether the manuscript is acceptable for publication in this section.
In comments to the editor, please note the acceptability of the manuscript. Please provide critical comments that will be help for the Editors to make a decision regarding the manuscript. If you feel that the manuscript is not suitable for EJBM, please indicate why within this section.
Once you have completed the review, please return your comments via e-mail to email@example.com. We strongly advise that you save a copy of your comments for further reference prior to submitting the form.
Writing the Review
EJBM considers multiple categories of articles for review:
» Original Articles describe novel clinical or biomedical research. Manuscripts should present information that is of interest and significance to its target audience.
» Reviews present an analysis of the current research surrounding a specific question or theme (e.g. recommended therapy for a particular disease or a suggested model for a biological process). Reviews should reference current research and should not simply summarize the material described.
» Clinical Reports are interesting case studies of individual patients from in-patient or out-patient settings.
» Special Topics articles comprise a wide variety of themes ranging from historical analyses to ethical discussions.
The following information may be helpful to consider during your review of a manuscript for EJBM (not all sections may be applicable):
Interest of the material to its target audience
Use of proper scientific or medical nomenclature
Clarity and conciseness in writing
Minimization of jargon whenever possible
Abstract for research articles contains the following sections: objectives, background, methods, results, and conclusions.
Information is clearly and concisely presented
Relevant and appropriate literature is cited
Rationale for the research is detailed in sufficient length
Appropriateness of the experimental methodology or design
Employment of proper statistical analysis
Mention of confounders or potential biases
Sufficient detail and information in methodology description
Tables and figures are appropriate to the information and enhance rather than merely restate results
Tables and figures are designed in the proper format for the information conveyed
Results appear credible and are presented clearly and concisely
Support of the data for the conclusions reached
Results are interpreted and not simply restated
Conclusions, recommendations, and statements are supported by the results
Limitations of the research are discussed
New results are not discussed for the first time in the discussion
Results are presented in a balanced manner such that certain findings are not hidden or avoided.
Citations to relevant literature are offered
It is not necessary to check that the citation style is correct
Use of appropriate literature citations
Extraneous references are not included
Important citations are not omitted