Information for reviewers

Peer review

All manuscripts submitted to Spandidos Publications are peer reviewed prior to publication. The suitability of each manuscript is assessed by the journal’s editorial board and refereed critically by two or more reviewers. The editor reserves the right to reject or to return the manuscript to the author(s) for additional changes.

For original articles or case reports, reviewers are generally asked to comment on certain aspects of the submitted manuscripts using the following guidelines:

(A) Provide an overview/summary of the manuscript

(B) Introduction and discussion
  1. Has any relevant published work not been cited?
  2. Have the authors highlighted the aims, significance and the novelty of their work?

(C) Materials and methods
  1. Please comment on the appropriateness of the methods and statistical analyses used, including whether alternative methods should be used instead of, or in addition to the current experiments.
  2. Ethics/guidelines: have the most recent ethical or staging system classification guidelines been followed? Have any mis-identified cell lines been used? Has the paper been approved/consent from patients has been obtained?
  3. Please comment on the limitations of the methods used and whether the authors have appropriately discussed this.

(D) Results
  1. Please comment on the quality of the data presented, including the reliability and validity of the results and the figures.
  2. Have the authors presented the relevant controls?
  3. Are the conclusions made supported by the data presented?

(E) Quality of english language
  1. Can you  comment on the level of the English?
  2. Do you believe the manuscript should be language edited prior to acceptance?

(F) Additional comments

  • Reviewers please note that Spandidos Publications does not publish supplementary files, so all data is expected to be incorporated in the main manuscript for publication. Any supplementary files requested by the reviewer should be for review purposes only and not due for publication.

Responsibility of reviewers

Reviewers are asked to judge the quality of the research reported objectively and respect the intellectual independence of the authors. In no case is personal criticism appropriate. Reviewers should clearly explain and support their judgments as much as possible and in such a way that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments.

Reviewers should point out relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.

A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor.

Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author.

Final acceptance of all submitted manuscripts is a decision made by the Editor(s) in consultation with the Editorial Board and reviewers. If a manuscript does not meet the standards of the journal or is otherwise lacking in scientific rigor or contains major deficiencies, the reviewers will attempt to provide constructive criticism to assist the authors in ultimately improving their work for publication, here or elsewhere. Manuscripts not invited for resubmission will not be reconsidered

If a manuscript receives favorable reviews but is not accepted outright following the initial review, it may be invited for reconsideration with the expectation that the authors will fully address the reviewer’s criticisms. Resubmitted manuscripts with major revisions will be sent back for peer review.

Where an author believes that an editor has made an error in declining a paper, they may submit an appeal. The appeal letter should clearly state the reasons why the author(s) considers the decision to be incorrect and provide detailed, specific responses to any comments relating to the rejection of the review. Further advice from members of the journal’s Editorial Advisory Panel external experts will be sought regarding eligibility for re-review.