NAMMCO Scientific Publications uses a single blind peer-review process. This means that your identity as a reviewer will not be disclosed to the author. However, to ensure this, you must take care not to put your name in any forms or documents that will be sent to the author. You must also make sure that the metadata of any files you attach to your review have been anonymized. More information on how to ensure this can be found here.
As stated in COPE's ethical Guidelines for peer reviewers: "It is important to remain unbiased by considerations related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, origins of a manuscript or by commercial considerations." As a reviewer, you are required to ensure that your review complies with these ethical standards. This includes giving a fair, honest and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the paper, without thinking of personal gain or disagreeing on the author's choices based on personal opinions. Please also disclose all (possible) conflicts of interests you may have with the author(s) and/or publication, even when you are unsure whether this will affect your assessment of the manuscript.
When conducting the review, you will be required to complete an online review form based on the questions below, so please bear this in mind when going through the manuscript. The completed review form represents the main assessment of the paper. However, it is also possible to upload an additional document if this is deemed necessary.
Reviewers are asked to comment on the manuscript regarding the following criteria and questions:
1. Scientific Value
Is the paper an original and valuable contribution to knowledge in this field? Is the information novel, or a valuable confirmation of previous work?
Are all portions of the paper necessary, or can it be shortened without loss? Should some portions be expanded? Is there adequate background and recognition of previously published work in the area?
3. Materials and Methods
Is the methodology, including experimental design, sampling and statistical analysis, sound and appropriate? Are all methods adequately described?
4. Interpretation of Results
Do the observed results justify the given interpretation? Is the discussion adequate? Are the implications of the results adequately reflected in the discussion?
5. Title and Abstract
Is the abstract specific and representative of the paper? Is the title appropriate to the contents of the paper?
6. Illustrations and Tables:
Are all illustrations and tables necessary, or are additional ones required? Do they have informative captions? Can you suggest any improvements in presentation?
7. Citations and References
Are citations given where appropriate? Conversely, are there any unnecessary citations? Are the references complete and in the correct style?
Is the English clear and grammatically correct, or does it require (extensive) editing?
Reviewers are also asked to recommend one of the following actions for the manuscript:
- Acceptable without revision
- Acceptable with minor revision
- Acceptable with major revision
- Not acceptable