GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS
Guidelines for Reviewers
Modern Medical Laboratory Journal
Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is a privilege. It is also an exciting and enjoyable educational experience. However, it is also a time-consuming responsibility. The Modern Medical Laboratory Journal (Mod Med Lab J), its editors, authors, and readers appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedication. We hope that these Guidelines will help make your job easier.
General Policies and Procedures
Authors submit their manuscripts electronically via our online submission system. Each manuscript is first reviewed by our editorial staff for relevancy to the scope of the journal. If retained, the manuscript is assigned to Internal Reviewers to check the format and to provide initial comments about its suitability for further processing within 7 working days before being sent for external peer review.
Action Steps Upon Invitation
1. On receipt of the invitation:
- Log on to the system and go to the Reviewer’s homepage.
- Read the article abstract to determine if the subject is within your area of expertise and whether you can complete the review in the stated timeframe.
- Accept or decline the invitation promptly.
2. If you decline:
- Please indicate why you are declining.
- If possible, suggest a colleague who may be able to review it. The editor will send an invitation to them. You may not directly "transfer" your invitation.
3. If you accept:
- Download the full text file for evaluation.
- Quickly skim the manuscript to verify it fits within the journal's scope.
- Inform the editorial office immediately if any parts are missing.
Confidentiality & Communication
The manuscript provided to you is a privileged document. Please protect it from any form of exploitation. Do not cite a manuscript or use the information it contains for your own research before it has been published.
Do not discuss the paper with its authors: Even if you are in favor of publication, this practice is prohibited. The final decision rests with the editor, and authors may be misled by having "cleared things up" directly with a reviewer.
Conducting the Review
Adopt a positive, impartial, but critical attitude toward the manuscript with the aim of promoting effective, accurate, and relevant scientific communication. Criticism should be presented dispassionately; offensive remarks are not acceptable.
Please consider the following aspects when reviewing:
- Significance to the scientific community
- Originality
- Appropriateness of approach or experimental design
- Appropriateness of statistical analyses
- Appropriate literature citations
- Adequacy of experimental techniques
- Soundness of conclusions and interpretation
- Relevance of discussion
- Organization, Title, and Abstract adequacy
- Appropriateness of figures and tables
- Results relevant to the problem posed? Credible?
- References up to date? Any glaring omissions?
- Overall presentation, writing style, and clarity
Formatting your comments: Organize your review so that an introductory paragraph summarizes the major findings, gives your overall impression, and highlights major shortcomings. Follow this with specific, numbered comments. Do not state your recommendation for acceptance/rejection in the comments intended for the author. Confidential remarks and your final recommendation should be directed solely to the editor in the designated section.
Ethics & Publication Policies
We rely heavily on reviewers to detect ethical breaches before publication. If you suspect any issues, you must communicate them directly to the editor; do not contact the author. Be alert for:
- Plagiarism: Can involve any part of the manuscript, including copied figures/tables or using very similar wording without attestation.
- Missing attestation: Authors must give appropriate credit to previously published ideas or data.
- Dual submission/publication: Check literature citations closely to detect attempts to publish similar material more than once.
- Conflicts of interest: If you are aware of any affiliations or patent-licensing arrangements on the part of the authors—or if you have a conflict of interest (e.g., an author is at your institution)—bring it to the editor's attention immediately.
These guidelines are based on the guidelines provided by the Council of Science Editors.