For Reviewers

Instructions For Reviewers

BioDiscovery offers two peer review systems which the authors can choose from: the traditional closed peer review and open peer review.

Closed Peer Review

After initial screen by the editors the manuscript is sent to at least two reviewers, experts in the research field. If you have been asked to become a reviewer please consider:

Conflict of Interest Reviewers should not accept to review a manuscript if they feel they cannot give an impartial and objective review, free from professional or personal bias. If you have questions regarding a potential conflict of interest, please contact the Editorial Office. If you realize that a conflict of interest exists after the review process begins, please contact the Editorial Office immediately so that alternative reviewer is arranged and the review is completed in a timely fashion.

Review Time Lines The review should be completed within 2 weeks. Please contact the Editorial Office immediately if due to unforeseen circumstances you are unable to complete the review in the allotted time immediately so that alternative reviewer is arranged and the review is completed in a timely fashion.

Confidentiality The reviewer should maintain confidentiality about the existence and substance of the manuscript. It is inappropriate to share the manuscript or to discuss it in detail with others before publication.

Reviewer Conduct As stated in the Uniform Requirements for Reviewers (, “Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests.” Knowledge of the content of confidential manuscripts should not be used for any other purpose unrelated to the reviewing of the manuscript.

Reporting Concerns The reviewer also has the responsibility of noting any ethical concerns, not limited to but including suspected duplicate publication, fraud, plagiarism, or ethical concerns about the use of animals or humans in the research being reported.

Constructing a ReviewRating a manuscript – In this section of the review form the reviewer evaluates the: 1)Novelty/Originality, 2) Scientific Importance/Impact, 3) Adequacy of Methods/Experimental Design, 4) Quality of Data/Presentation Results, and 5) Overall recommendation for publication of the manuscript using a scale of 1 to 5 (top):

Top 10 % = 5; Top 20% = 4; Top 30% = 3; Upper 50% = 2; Lower 50% = 1; N/A = Does not apply to this paper

In confidential comments to the Editor – Summarize your reasons for your rating and recommendations. Provide specific comments regarding the original aspects of the work and its importance. Indicate whether you have any concerns regarding the statistical analysis used or if there are any ethical considerations.

In comments to the Author – The comments to the author should not include any statements that indicate to the author your judgment as to the acceptability of the paper for publication. These comments should be stated in a constructive and helpful way. The reviewer should discuss the shortcomings and/or strengths of a study. Include in your critique your judgment of 1) originality and scientific importance, 2) adequacy of the title, 3) adequacy of the abstract, 4) adequacy of introduction, clarity of rationale and hypothesis, 5) adequacy of experimental design and methods, 6) quality of data and presentation of results, including figures, 7) appropriateness of the data interpretation, 8) appropriateness of the discussion, and 9) inclusion of recent and appropriate references. If possible, make specific recommendations for revisions.

Open Peer Review

The open peer review system is a two-stage publication process. In the first stage, manuscripts that pass a quick screen by the editors are immediately published on the BioDiscovery website. They are then subject to interactive public discussion alongside formal peer review. Referees’ comments (either anonymous or attributed), comments by other members of the scientific community (which must be attributed) and the authors’ replies are also published on the BioDiscovery website. In the second stage, the peer-review process is completed and, if the manuscript is formally accepted by the editors the final article is published in BioDiscovery.

The comments should address the shortcomings and/or strengths of the manuscript and should give constructive criticism and suggestions aimed at improvement of the publication. The comments should not include any statements that indicate your judgment as to the acceptability of the paper for publication.