Guidelines for Reviewers

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. PESSR and its editors, authors, and readers therefore appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedication. We hope that these guidelines will help make your job easier.

On some occasions, it may not be necessary to dwell in detail on report framing. These are generally cases where the paper is so poorly prepared as to be virtually incomprehensible. There may also be cases where the experimental design is irretrievably flawed. Where a contribution is too slight for acceptance but does hold some interest, it may be worth gently encouraging the author to do further work towards a more substantial paper. Alternatively, it may be helpful to report some material in a short paper.

Probably, all manuscripts will be improved by some revision before publication. Even when you wish to recommend acceptance, there will probably be various specific proposals that you can make towards improving the paper.

Please ensure that your critical comments and recommendations about publication align: authors are sometimes puzzled to receive largely friendly comments or apparently mild criticism associated with a recommendation to reject. If you recommend rejection, please provide sufficient grounds. Rejection of a paper is bound to disappoint the authors, and no purpose is served by added offence or personal abuse from an anonymous referee. Rejection is most tolerable when it is clear that the reviewers have considered the paper with a thoroughness compatible with the authors' investment of time in their work.

Referees don't need to focus on whether a paper conforms to the Journal's style. Nevertheless, minor alterations may be suggested by penciled annotation of the manuscript.

Please, download the Reviewers Form [download] and fill it out section by section. The first section contains General information about the manuscript, which the Editorial Board will provide. The referee should fill in all other segments, including the following parts: comments for each section of the manuscript, evaluation, recommendation, and additional comments.

We are aware that referees perform a vital service without extrinsic reward; the least we can do is provide them with feedback on the other referees' reports. Clearly, this material is provided in strict confidence.

Please consider the following questions before framing your written report.
1. Does the paper sufficiently advance knowledge to merit publication?
2. Is the content of the paper within the scope of this Journal?
3. Journal presentation: Is the journal presentation clear and precise?
4. Could the experiment(s) be repeated from the descriptions and references given?
5. Are the illustrations necessary and adequate?
6. Are the aims clearly defined and followed?
7. Are the statistical analyses appropriate and clear?
8. Are the conclusions justified by the experimental evidence?
9. Are the references adequate? (Use the Guidelines for Authors)
10. Does the abstract accurately describe the work performed and the conclusions drawn?