Instructions

Reviewer Conduct
The Journal believes strongly in the importance and integrity of the scientific peer-review process. Reviewer should consider potential conflicts of interest arising from personal relationships or academic competition, and you should disqualify yourself from reviewing the manuscript if you believe it to be necessary. By agreeing to review a manuscript, you implicitly affirm that any potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed to the Editors and that you are able to provide an impartial review of this manuscript.

The manuscript is considered a privileged communication. When reviewing a manuscript for the Journal, you take responsibility for maintaining its confidentiality. You should not retain copies of submitted manuscripts for personal use after completing your review. You may not make any use of the work described in the manuscript or take advantage of the knowledge gained by reviewing it until and unless it is published. It is the practice of Bioresearch Communications to conduct a blinded peer-review process; it is considered a violation of this process for peer reviewers to identify themselves or attempt to communicate directly with authors regarding the reviewed manuscript without the express permission of the Editors. The Editors will consider any deliberate ethical violation during peer review of a manuscript to be actionable misconduct, the potential results of which may be reporting of conduct to your governing institution, dismissal as a peer reviewer for the Journal, and/or the denial to consider any future submissions to the Journal. Willful misconduct does not include incidents of honest misjudgment or inadvertent error.

If necessary, the manuscript may be discussed with a colleague in an effort to reach a decision. In such instances, you must inform your colleague of the manuscript’s confidentiality and ask that they disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Information regarding additional assistance (colleague’s name and disclosure information as well as a description of the level of assistance) should be included in the “Confidential Comments to the Editor” portion of the online reviewer form.

Finally, as the authors of the manuscript are eagerly awaiting a decision regarding publication, we respectfully ask that you complete your review in a timely manner, i.e. two weeks. Any delays in completing a review should be brought to the immediate attention of the Editorial Office so that we may assess the situation and make adjustments as needed.

Manuscript Review Instructions
Please make an overall appraisal of the manuscript’s suitability for publication in Bioresearch Communications based on the following guidelines:

1. The manuscript should provide significant new information or concepts.
2. The data should be clearly presented with (a) an introduction stating the objectives and background, (b) precisely described experimental procedures, (c) clearly described results with tables and figures presented with maximum clarity, (d) a discussion that provides accurate interpretation of the data and their relation to other published work or the work of others, and (e) a relevant and concise bibliography.
3. The title should be succinct (accurately reflecting the major findings of the work), and the abstract should stand alone (clearly summarizing the background, methodology, results, and significance of the study).
4. The paper should conform to the Journal scope and manuscript preparation guidelines outlined in the Instructions to Authors. Writing style and English usage may be briefly commented upon.

We value your opinion and the time and care taken to prepare this review for Bioresearch Communications.