Referees Guidelines


The following key points should be taken into consideration when evaluating a paper and writing the report:

Title: Is it adequate for the content of the article?
Abstract: Does it contain the essential information of the article?
Diagrams, figures, tables: Are they essential and clear?
Originality:
What is the level of the paper's novelty? Does the work contain significant additional material to that already published?
Relevance: Is the material appropriate for the journal's fields of interest?
Clarity: Are ideas expressed clearly and concisely? Are the concepts written in an easy to understand manner?
Referencing: Has the author made reference to the most recent and most appropriate work? Is the present work set in the context of the previous work?
Use of English language: The referee does not need to make corrections to the English in an article. FBMJ's production staff will verify that spelling, punctuation, grammar and format are corrected when the article is accepted for publication. But making corrections where the scientific meaning is unclear is always welcome.
Length: Is the content of the article of sufficient scientific interest to justify its length? Each paper should be as compact as possible to contain all useful and relevant information, and no longer. If shortening is needed please indicate specific areas where that reduction is required.
Scientific level: Is the work scientifically rigorous, accurate and correct?
Approach & Methodology:
Is it suitable chosen to meet the purpose of the paper? Does it explain precisely how the data was collected? Does the article identifies the used procedures and are they are ordered in a logical way? If the methods used are new, are they explained in detail? If a sample was used in the research, was it appropriate chosen?
Results: The paper must explain what are the results of the research and why are they important. The results should be presented clearly and in a logical order.
Conclusion: Does the paper contain a carefully written conclusion, summarizing what has been learned and why it is interesting and useful? Is there a leap forward in scientific knowledge?


Alongside with the necessary comments that will be transmitted to the authors, the final recommendation of the referee should include one of the four options below:

a) rejection because of the poor quality or because the paper is not entirely on the journal's field of interest
b) accepted with major modifications
c) accepted with minor modifications
d) accepted without any modifications









About
Editorial Board
Aims & Objectives
Author Guidelines
Referees Guidelines
External Referees
Archive
Sponsors & Partners
Subscription
Submit Article
Contact