Journal of Biological Regulators and Homeostatic Agents (JBRHA) adopts double-blind peer review. Reviewers should judge the manuscript objectively and respect the intellectual independence of authors. In no case is personal criticism appropriate. Reviewers should explain and support their judgments in a clear way that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments.

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. Reviewers Responsibilities

Potential reviewers should inform the editor of any possible Conflicts of Interest before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript. If the communications between editors and reviewers contain confidential information, they must not share it with third parties.

Reviewers are required to keep the manuscript contents confidential and provide an unbiased scientific opinion of the manuscript. Also, reviewers are expected to submit their comments within the indicated time frame.

To provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript, we ask reviewers the following questions:
• 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?
• Are 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 be properly documented. JBRHA requires ethical approval by the author’s host organization.
• Does the manuscript require language editing?

For more information about Editorial Policies, please visit Editorial Policies.

2. Benefits for Reviewers

In JBRHA, we value the hard work and dedication of our reviewers. Therefore, for good reviewers, we are pleased to offer you the following benefits:
• Personalized reviewer certificate.
• A discount voucher of which will entitle you to a reduction in the Article Processing Charge (APC) of your future submission to the journal.
• Building your reputation and increasing your exposure to key figures in the field.
• Staying current with the latest literature and gaining access to research results.
• Advancement in your career—reviewer is an essential role for every researcher.

3. Managing Your Review

3.1 Confidential Material

Respect the confidentiality of the peer-review process, based on COPE guideline.

Information concerning the manuscript (including the content of the manuscript, the status of the review process, peer review comments, and editorial decisions, etc.) must not be disclosed by the editor to anyone other than the author and reviewers.

Reviewers and editors must respect the rights of authors, and refrain from publicly discuss the authors' work or misappropriating their ideas before the manuscript is published. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscripts or share them with others without the permission of the editor and authors.

3.2 Timeliness

JBRHA's aim is to facilitate the dissemination of high-quality research in the area of biomedical science. To publish scientific work timely, we encourage reviewers to return their comments within one to two weeks. If any unanticipated difficulties may prevent you from submitting the review on time, please contact the Editorial Office directly.

3.3 Conflict of Interest in Reviewing Process

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.

JBRHA requires editorial staff or editors not be involved in processing their own academic work. Guest Editors should not hold conflicts of interest with authors whose work they are assessing (e.g., from the same institution or collaborate closely). In such case, the Editor-in-Chief or a suitable Editorial Board member will make final acceptance decisions for submitted papers.

3.4 Comments to Editors

Comments to the Editor will be submitted to the Editors. 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?

3.5 Comments to Authors

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' comments can help editors make better decisions. However, editors make their decision based on the overall reviewers' comments as well as the journal’ preferences and priority to 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.
• 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, 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 with 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.

3.6 Your Recommendation

When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor will likely use for classifying the article:
• Accept manuscript in its current form.
• Accept with major/minor revisions (a sound and clear explanation is required).
• Reject (reasoning is required).
• Reason for rejection: (1) Flawed methods and results; (2) Insufficient explanation of the results; (3) Low academic value; (4) Other reasons.

If you encounter difficulties during your review, please contact our editors who invite you or the journal Editorial Office.

3.7 How to Access Your Review

Your review will be managed via JBRHA online editorial system. To access the paper and review report form, click on the link in the invitation email you received which will take you to the online editorial system. If you encounter difficulties while accessing the paper, please email the editor or the Editorial Office.

Updated on 25 May 2022