Information For Reviewers
We are grateful for the work that all reviewers do to assist authors to enhance and develop their papers, and support the integrity of the publishing process.
1. Benefits to Reviewers
At BRI, we value the hard work and dedication of our reviewers, thus we are very happy to offer you the following benefits every time you review for a BRI journal:
• Receive a personalized reviewer certificate.
• An approximate 30% discount is available for all types articles.
• Establish your expertise in the field and expand your knowledge.
• Improve your reputation and increase your exposure to key figures in the field.
• Stay up to date with the latest literature and have advanced access to research results.
• Develop critical thinking skills essential to research.
• Advance in your career – peer review is an essential role for researchers.
2. Reviewers Responsibilities
BRI operates a double-blind peer review. 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.
Before accepting to review a manuscript, reviewers should ensure that:
• The manuscript is within their area of expertise.
• Reviewers can dedicate the appropriate time to conduct a critical review of the manuscript.
• Reviewers suggest alternative reviewers if an invitation must be declined.
• Reviewers request an extension if more time is required to compose a critique.
• Reviewers should declare their conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists. For details, please refer to ICMJE.
To provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript we ask reviewers the following types of questions:
Criteria for Assessing Articles:
• Does the manuscript require language editing?
• Does the abstract convey the major theme of the paper?
• Does the introduction describe the rationale for the study in the context of the available literature?
• Does the article comprehensively and critically evaluate an existing problem in the context of the available literature?
• Where relevant, have appropriate ethics approval and informed consent been obtained?
• Are the methods adequately described?
• Is the number of samples, number of repeats, equipment and chemicals used clearly mentioned?
• Is the catalogue number of antibodies mentioned?
• Are statistical methods clearly stated?
• Is the discussion well-balanced in light of the available literature and the research findings?
• Are any conflicts of interest stated?
• Experiments including patient or animal data should properly be documented. Most journals require ethical approval by the author’s host organization. For more information about Editorial Policies.
3. Managing Your Review
3.1. Confidential Material
Respect the confidentiality of the peer-review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others, based on COPE guideline.
BRI's aim is to fulfill the information needs of particular research communities worldwide, and maximize the dissemination of innovative research achievements. To avoid delay in publication of important scientific work, we request that reviewers return their comments within the time indicated at the initial invitation to review the manuscript. If any unanticipated difficulties arise that may prevent you from submitting the review on time, please contact the editorial office immediately.
3.3. Comments to the Editor
Comments to the Editor will be submitted to help guide the Editors in making a decision about the ultimate disposition of the paper. Comments and constructive criticism of the manuscript should be placed in the Comments to the Author.
In your comments to the editor, state your opinion about whether the study is an important contribution to the literature and appropriate for the audience, whether it is controversial in nature, or whether you think it requires an editorial comment to explain, expand, or highlight certain results. In addition to recommending that the paper be accepted, rejected, or revised for further consideration, we rely heavily on our reviewers to note whether there is any evidence of breach of publication or scientific ethics:
• Have data from this paper been published previously?
• Do you see evidence of plagiarism?
• Do you have concerns about scientific fraud or failure of the authors to disclose any conflicts of interest?
• Do you have concerns about any violation of ethical treatment of human subjects?
3.4. Comments to the Author
In your written comments to the authors, please include your judgement of:
• The significance and interest of the paper to readers.
• The originality and soundness of the scientific work. Do not include overall recommendations in your comments to the authors ("This paper is publishable," "This paper is unacceptable," "This paper should not be published," etc.). General recommendations should appear only in comments you provide separately for the editor. Reviewers often disagree; it is the editor’s job to make an overall recommendation concerning publication.
• Specific numbered comments should include your impressions of the strengths and weaknesses of each item. Numbered (1, 2, 3, etc.) comments will facilitate the editors’ communication to the authors, the authors’ responses to reviewers, and re-reviews.
• When you make recommendations to an author, provide sufficient detail for the author to understand why you made your recommendation. For example, instead of stating: "You should discuss Weber’s work." it is better to say "You should discuss Weber’s theory of the relationship between capitalism and Protestantism, because the social dynamics described in that theory are very similar to the social dynamics you are discussing." Provide specific citations to help the authors find the literature you are referencing.
• Is the writing concise, clear, and well organized? Do all sections of the manuscript consistently reflect the major point being made? Should the paper or parts of it be shortened or expanded? Are findings new, unique, convincing, interesting?
• Does the abstract accurately reflect the scope and content of the manuscript?
• Is the research question or hypothesis clearly stated in the manuscript’s Introduction?
• Are the methods and statistical design valid for the question asked? Are these methods current? Are the methods clearly presented so that the work can be replicated by other researchers? Are sample sizes adequate? Are the statistical analyses appropriate and correct?
• Are the results clearly summarized? Are data in the text and tables/figures consistent? Do tables/figures included in the manuscript convey necessary information? Is information needlessly repeated? Can some information be placed online-only?
• Are the conclusions outlined in the manuscript’s Discussion justified and interpretations sound? Are the limitations of the study noted?
• Are the cited references pertinent and current? Do they support any assertions of fact not addressed by the data presented in this paper?
• Are figures of high quality and clearly labeled? Are legends and titles clear?
• Even if you think a manuscript is seriously flawed, try to provide the author specific suggestions as to how it might be improved. Also be sure to identify the strengths of a paper, and consider whether and how those strengths might be salvaged.
• Sometimes you will receive a manuscript which obviously is written by someone whose first language is not English. In these cases, please be sure to distinguish, as best you can, between the quality of writing and quality of ideas. Writing problems in an otherwise insightful paper could be addressed during manuscript revision.
• Do not identify yourself or your institution in your comments for the authors. Do not use letterhead.
3.5. Your Recommendation
When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor will likely use for classifying the article:
1) Reject (explain your reasoning in your report).
2) Accept without revision.
3) Revise – either major or minor (explain the revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether you would be happy to review the revised article). If you are recommending a revision, you must furnish the author with a clear, sound explanation of why this is necessary.
Manuscripts with the following characteristics may be accepted: (1) Important and novel topic; (2) Interesting results; (3) Innovative original manuscripts or forward-looking and instructive review; (4) Major scientific advances; (5) In-depth analysis and scientific connotation.
Reason for rejection: (1) Not suitable for BRI journals; (2) Methods and results are not credible, or have basic errors; (3) Not sufficient explain the results; (4) Minor research progress; (5) Low academic value; (6) Poor writing; (7) Other reasons.
Once you are ready to submit your report, consult the editorial office if you encounter any difficulties.
3.6. How to Log in and Access Your Review
Your review will be managed via an online submission system. To access the paper and deliver your review, click on the link in the invitation email you received which will bring you to the submission/reviewing system. If you experience difficulties accessing the paper, you might consult the editorial office.
4. Peer-Review and Editorial Procedure
(1) Preliminary review: before peer review, the editorial office may preliminary review all manuscripts and reject manuscripts that are not novel or not suitable for BRI journals.
(2) Peer review: a manuscript is reviewed by at least two reviewers. The results of the peer review will directly influence the editor's decision.
(3) Editor decision and revision: In cases where only minor revisions are recommended, the author is usually requested to revise the paper before referring to the external editor. Articles may or may not be sent to reviewers after author revision, dependent on whether the reviewer requested to see the revised version and the wishes of the Academic editor. Apart from in exceptional circumstances, we allow a maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript.
(4) Author appeal: the editorial office will send the author's complaint manuscript to you. You should reply and make a recommendation. If you are a reviewer that the authors ask to evade, the editor will consider other reviewers.