Reviewer's Guidelines

Before review

Peer reviewers play a central role in the peer-review process. ART editorial team encourages peer reviewers to read ethical guidelines recommended by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

ART Editorial team recommends the reviewers to consider the following guidelines before accepting a manuscript to review:

All submissions to the ART are treated confidential. The reviewers should not disclose any information related to submission with a third party.

Before beginning to review the manuscript, the reviewers must disclose all conflicts of interest to the editorial team.

If the reviewers determine that the article is a substantial copy of another research work, please contact the editors as soon as possible.

In research studies involving human subjects, the research protocol must have been approved by appropriate institutional research ethics committee and must be declared in the manuscript under the methodology sections (ART follows the ICMJE's recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing and publication of scholarly work in medical journals).

The reviewers are expected to complete the evaluation of a submitted manuscript within 2 weeks. However, if additional time is required, reviewers should contact the Editorial team as soon as possible to determine alternatives.

During review

Our editorial process focuses on the robustness and validity of research under consideration, from methodological, analytical, statistical and ethical perspectives, rather than making subjective decisions based on novelty. Peer reviewers are the backbone of this important scholarly publication process.

We request the reviewers to provide rigorous, objective and constructive peer reviews that aids the authors in revising the manuscript therefore meeting the scientific publication standards. We recommend our reviewers to read the Research Micro author’s guidelines to evaluate if the manuscript meets the submission criteria such as article length, scope and clarity of presented research work. The following sections should be assessed:

The article title should be informative and should clearly describe the presented research work.

The abstract of an article should be brief and should capture the content of the manuscript (including objective of the study, methodology, results and conclusions).

Introduction section should clearly state the scientific problem(s) being explored in the article, objective of the study, what is known in the literature and if applicable, how the presented study potentially translates to solve a clinical problem.

ART recommends that the reviewer evaluate the following details in the methodology section:
  • whether the study design is appropriate to address the research problem(s)
  • whether sufficient information is presented for other investigators to replicate the study
  • whether data collection methodology is clearly described
  • whether the in-text citations correspond to the listed references (Vancouver style)
  • whether the details of antibodies, primers, equipment and/or software employed are clearly presented

    • The reviewers should evaluate if the presented data (tables or figures) are robust and validate the proposed scientific question. In the discussion section, the authors must have supported their findings with relevant explanations and references drawn to published literature. The reviewers should also evaluate if the authors have drawn reasonable conclusions and described study limitations (if any).

    The cited references should be in “Vancouver” style in numerical order (1,2,3,...), and in the same order in which they are cited in the article. Reference style is described in US NLM guide and recommended by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

    After review

    Peer review is the foundation of our scholarly publication process which allows us to support and maintain integrity of scientific advances. After evaluating the quality of the paper, reviewers should make a recommendation (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or recommend for rejection).

    Based on the recommendations of the peer reviewers, the Editors will make a decision about the steps the authors have to take in the publication process. The decision will be communicated to the reviewers and authors

    The Editors will make every attempt to reach out to the original reviewers to evaluate the revised manuscripts submitted by the authors.

    Journal Info
    For Authors
    About Publisher
    BiomedTree logo

    • Driving innovations through knowledge