www.ibrain.org.cn
NANO

NANO Journals > Ibrain > Reviewers' Home

What is peer reviewer?
Peer review is a central part of scholarly publication process, held as the best available means to help check the quality and validity of individual papers being submitted by medical researchers. For medical journals, peer review means ask experts from the same field as the paper’s authors to help editors make a decision on publication or rejection of the manuscript, by providing a critique of the work . In spite of criticism, peer review is still the only widely accepted method for validation research, of which in turn helps to ensure that medical treatments are safe and effective for patients.
What’s more, peer review can also guides decisions about grants for medical research funding when it is established in other areas beyond journal publishing.
Peer review has been a formal part of scientific communication since the first scientific journals appeared more than 300 years ago. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is thought to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process. The peer review process Ibrain peer reviews all the material it receives. Peer review is a review by peers which including internal review (by editorial staff) and external review (by experts in the field). Peer review aims to reach a first decision on all manuscripts within two or three weeks of submission. While rejection takes much less time than this.
Usually, about half of the submitted original research manuscripts submitted are rejected after review by two medical editors without external peer review. In general, the reasons for rejection at this stage are non-fitted research of good originality, or a lack of some important messages that is necessary for reading, or with serious flaws, or simply not in the scope of Ibrain, which lead us to decide that Ibrain is not the right journal for the manuscript. In order to save author’s time allowing them to submit the work elsewhere without unnecessary delay, we usually make the rejection decision quickly.
For detailed process of peer review, it may firstly start with a screening of research article by reading only the structured abstract, which may require a complete, accurate and clear abstract. Once the work does not seem to fit Ibrain, it may be advised to send straight to another journal with a higher acceptance rate. In addition, Ibrain have produced a checklist to help authors decide whether it is the right journal for their research. Types of peer review Single Blind Review In single blind review process, it keeps unknown to the author that who are the reviewers. Therefore, it is convenient for reviewers to make impartial comments on the work without being influenced by the authors. So far, single blind review is the traditional method of reviewing and is the most common type. Double Blind Review For double blind review, both the reviewers and the authors are anonymous, which could avoid any bias on the author from the reviewers. Moreover, it makes the peer review fair, for example, articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered on the basis of the content of their papers, rather than their reputation. Open Review For research papers, Ibrain has fully open peer review. Open review means that reviewer and author are known to each other. In the review, reviewers are asked to sign their reports and declare any competing interests on any manuscripts. Therefore, this is the best way to prevent malicious comments and on the other hand, it may also make the review open and honest. Transparent policy For reviewers contribute a lot for academic publishing, their important roles deserve to be well acknowledged. In order to ensure that readers, authors, and editors know as much about the background to each other’s work as possible, we establish some policies such as open peer review, declaring competing interests and acknowledge the contribution of reviewers.
How to become a reviewer?
Be a reviewer: how and why Do you want to become a reviewer? Before you decide whether you want to be a reviewer, how to conduct a review was recommended to you for more information about the reviewers. Of course, the investment of time and a certain skill were demanded to become a reviewer. You can also visit some training courses and webinars in the tools and resources section or at the free NANO Publishing Campus.
The reviewers are invited to examine and approve manuscripts by books or journal editor. Editors often select expert who is engaged in the same or similarly field as the manuscript. Nevertheless, you can contact the relevant editor(s) through the site and offer your reviewing services, if you think you could be a good reviewer for a specific journal. What do reviewers do? Reviewers assess the submitted manuscript according to the requirement of the journal. They make a suggestion to improve quality of the research and provide feedback to the editor about whether to reject, request changes or accept to the article. To become a reviewer, you should meet the requirements listed below: • Build relationships with famous colleagues and their affiliated journals, to increase chance to join an Editorial Board.
• Reciprocate professional courtesy, since authors and reviewers are often interchangeable roles – as reviewer, researchers ‘repay’ the same courtesy they receive as authors.
• Make sure the rigorous criteria of the scientific process by participating in the peer-review system.
• Carry out a sense of responsibilities and obligations to the community and their own field. The benefits of becoming a reviewer There are large amounts of benefits to be a reviewer. You can:
• Broaden your knowledge and establish your expertise in the field.
• Keep pace with the latest report and have advanced access to research results.
• Foster critical thinking for research
• Augment your exposure to key figures in the field and enhance your reputation. Cross-Reviewing Cross-Reviewing allows reviewers to see each other’s reports once all reports have been submitted and discussed by other reviewer in a short time. During this time, there is an opportunity for them to offer additional information or make further recommendations to the editor according to this discussion, before they make a final decision. Reviewer Feedback Programme To better meet the demand of reviewers. The reviewer Feedback Programme was built. The Reviewer Feedback Programme may help us to enhance the reviewing experience. Such as, most of reviewers hope to see the comments on the article, making by other reviewers, and the final decision. Therefore, we added the function to Ibrain. At the same time, we will ask you various aspects about Ibrain and other aspects of reviewing through online questionnaire. If an online investigation was delivered to you, we strongly recommend you complete it to make us know that your voice is heard.
How to conduct a review?
Manuscripts submitted for publication in Ibrain journal are performed for single blind peer-review. Double blind review is followed in the condition of a selected number of patent journals. The identity of the reviewers (their names) does not be disclosed to authors in the process of single blind reviewing. The anonymity of reviewers guaranteed objective and unbiased assessment of the manuscript by reviewers.
Manuscript Evaluation Evaluation of manuscripts is taken care by a team of the journal’s Editors and the invited peer reviewers. Moreover, the detailed procedures are as follow. Editorial process In general, the editor is responsible for all administrative and executive actions, and can accept or reject papers. Firstly, if the manuscript falls within the scope of the journal and meets the editorial criteria of Ibrain in terms of originality and quality, it may be forwarded for evaluation to reviewers. For the reviewer’s reports constitute recommendations to the editor, the reviewer shouldous consideration about the work and suitability of a manuscript and decide whether it is suitable for the journal. Finally, a decision is relayed to the authors after review of the manuscript by at least two independent experts and the views of the editors. Under the circumstances of a wonderful manuscript, it may be accept without changes. While the paper fits the journal and needs to be modified, the authors would receive a decision of revisions required. However, once the manuscript does not fit the journal, it would be rejected and any suggestions stated by the reviewer are required in the report.
When a manuscript has been revised by the authors, it is the editor’s duty to consider the agreement between the reviewers. If there is a notable discrepancy between the reports of the two reviewers, or the authors regard the decision to reject as unfair, a senior reviewer may be appointed as adjudicator who is expected to provide a final decision on the manuscript according to the deliberate consideration on the initial reports. Selection of reviewers The Editor-in-Chief and Senior Editors of a journal have the right to select reviewers for a particular manuscript considering the knowledge and experience of the reviewers. In cases where reviewers are unable to assess the manuscript, the editor would welcome suggestions of alternative reviewers who expert in the specific field. What’s more, Ibrain will respect the reviewers’ availability and willingness for review before sending a manuscript to them. Aim of a review A review report supplies an expert opinion on the quality of the manuscript under consideration for the Editor-in-Chief/Senior Editor. It also provides definite feedback for authors on how to improve their papers to make them acceptable for publication in the journal. Most comments to the editors that may help improve the quality of the manuscript are forwarded to the authors for their consideration except for confidential comments. A good review reports answer significant areas described as following:
Are the study novelty and high standards?
What are the main findings of the paper?
Do the experimental data prove the opinions? If not, what other evidence may strongly support? Significant points to consider Reviewers are expected to offer advice on the following points in their review reports:
Is the manuscript written logically enough to be understandable? If not, how could it be improved?
Have suitable proofs been supplied for the opinions?
Does the paper provide enough details of its methodology to repeat the experiments?
Ibrain encourages authors to publish detailed protocols as supplemental materials online. Do any particular methods used in the manuscript certify such a protocol? Privacy statement Reviewers should keep the whole peer-review process completely confidential. Before consulting another colleague for help in the peer-review of the submitted manuscript, they should consult the Editor-in-Chief/Senior Editor and get permission. Moreover, before publishing the manuscript, they should not disclose any information whatsoever to anyone. Quick review The reviewers should their reports in a timely fashion as a quick review causes the timely publication of a manuscript which is good not only for the authors but for the scientific community as well. Changes in review reports The comments of the reviewers are relayed on behalf of the Editor-in-Chief/Handing Editor by the Editorial staff. If the comments of the reviewers contain confidential information or these are written in a language not suitable for scholarly communication, these comments can be edited by Editor-in-Chief/Handling Editor. Conflict of interest The relevant Ibrain concerned should be informed of any significant conflict of interest that editors, authors or reviewers may have, in order to determine if any action may be appropriate. In fact, conflicts of interest are almost inevitable and it is not intended to attempt to eliminate these. Indeed, editors will not be aware of all competing interest that editors, authors or reviewers may have, so it is appreciated that reviewers would inform the Editor-in-Chief/Handling Editor if they notice any potential conflicts of interest during the course of review of a manuscript.
Tools and Resource
Research tools for reviewer All NANO reviewers can access Springer Link, Science Online, PubMed through NANO Editorial System to help them in the process of peer review within 30 days.
Springer Link is a leading full-text scientific database providing the journal articles and book chapters downloading.
Science Online is a leading full-text scientific database offering journal articles and book chapters online reading.
NANO Editorial System, an online system, assists authors, editors and reviewers complete their submission, editorial process and peer review, respectively. Reviewer training Online lectures and the courses of peer review training are shown on the NANO Publishing Campus. Need help? Technical matters: Please contact the reviewers’ helpdesk for technical matters associating with the online system:
Email: ibrain66@163.com; tinghua_neuron@263.net
Fax: 00852-30756286
Telephone: 00852-31828506
Right for reviewers: For any questions associated with the NANO Editorial System, please contact:
Email: ibrain66@163.com; tinghua_neuron@263.net
Fax: 00852-30756286
Telephone: 00852-31828506
Contact Us:ibrain@idragon.org.cn
Website by:AYKJ