Reviewer Guidelines

1. An unpublished manuscript is a vested paper. Preserve it from any exploitation. Do not quote a manuscript or relate to the work it represents before published. Please don't use the data that it contains for the improvement of your research or in conversations with associates.

2. Embrace a positive, unbiased approach toward the paper under review, to foster useful and valuable scientific information. If you consider that you cannot decide a given article impartially, please pass it instantly to the editor.

3. Complete the reviews within 3 weeks. If you know that you cannot complete the review within the given timeframe, promptly pass the manuscript to the editor.

4. In your analysis, study the following phases of the manuscript:  (a) Importance of the research topic or subject investigated. (b)Check the originality of work through plagiarism software. (c) Suitability of approach or Methodology. (d)Competence of experimental procedures. (e)The soundness of outcomes and solution. (f) The significance of analysis (g)Adherence to style as outlined in guidelines to authors. (h) Adequacy of title and abstract. (i) Suitability of illustrations and reports. (j)Length of the article. (k)Adherence to right terminology (genetic, enzyme, drug, biochemical, etc.). (l)Relevant literature citations.

5. Any guidance you can provide in explaining application will be appreciated. If you want to note the writing of the manuscript, use a pencil or obtain a photocopy, label it, and return it collectively with the original.

6. You can be especially useful in pointing out irrelevant representations and data shown in both tabular (and graphic) form and detail in the text. Such tautologies are a consumption of space and readers time.

7. A notable fraction of authors have not mastered how to arrange data and will be benefiting from your supervision.

8. Do not discuss the paper with its authors.

9. Do not address any explicit comment about the acceptability of a paper in your remarks meant for delivering to the author. Recommended revision should be declared as such and not manifested as stipulations of acceptance. Contemporary review dispassionately and avoid obscene comments.

10. Design your review so that an opening statement summarizes the notable findings of the article, addresses your overall opinion of the paper and highlights the vital shortcomings. This paragraph should be accompanied by explicit numbered remarks which if appropriate, subdivided into major and minor points.

11. Confidential comments delivered to the editor should be typewritten (or handwritten) on a distinct sheet, not on the evaluation form. You might want to differentiate among revisions held crucially and those found merely desirable.

12. Carefully document your reviews, thoughts and recommendations concerning the paper will be beneficial to the editor and the author. Do not make dogmatic, dismissive comments, especially about the newness of work. Substantiate your remarks.

13. The editor gratefully receives reviewers recommendations. However, as editorial conclusions are based on evaluations obtained from various sources, reviewers should not anticipate the editor to honour each suggestion.

14. Categories of advice: accept, reject, modify. Surprisingly a few papers suit for acceptance upon original submission for publication but the minor style changes.

15. Save a copy of the review in your records. The manuscript may be delivered to you for a second review. You might need this copy to assess the author's replies to your reviews.