4. Peer-Review and Editorial Procedure
The editorial team of INTERNATIONAL LIFE SCIENCES PUBLISHERS (ILS) wishes to extend a heartfelt thanks to the reviewers who have provided valuable comments for authors' manuscripts. Your contributions are pivotal for improving their paper and supporting the integrity of the publishing process.
1. Benefits for Reviewers
ILS is grateful to all the peer reviewers that support our journals, and thus we are pleased to offer you the following benefits every time you review for an ILS journal:
(1) Personalized reviewer certificate.
(2) Being up-to-date to the latest developments and ongoing research, and getting access to research results.
(3) Establishing your reputation and increasing your contact to key figures in the field
(4) Facilitating your professional development and broadening knowledge.
(5) Strengthening critical thoughts that are vital to research in the review process.
(6) Advancement in career assessment, since it is of great significance to be a reviewer.
2. Reviewers Responsibilities
ILS operates a double-blind peer review process. Objective judgment on manuscript as well as respect for the intellectual independence of authors is a must.
Personal criticism is inappropriate under any circumstances.
Reviewers should provide the editors and authors with a detailed, fair and evidence-based evaluation.
(1) Before accepting the invitation for reviewing a manuscript:
Reviewers should ensure that they are experts in the manuscript's research field.
Reviewers should ensure that appropriate time is available for critical review of the manuscript.
Reviewers can make suggestions for alternative reviewers if needed.
(2) In the course of the review process:
Reviewers should disclose any relevant interests and recuse themselves from the peer-review process in the event of a conflict of interest, financial or otherwise
(See ICMJE for more information).
Reviewers may request an extension of the deadline if more time is needed to complete the review.
(3) Assessment criteria for articles:
Do the title and abstract cover the main aspects of the paper?
Is the rationale for the research clearly stated in the introduction in light of the available literature?
Is an existing problem comprehensively and critically assessed in the article in light of the available literature?
Did the study gain appropriate ethical approval and /or informed consent if human or animal subjects were involved?
Are the methods clear and replicable?
Is the antibody catalog number provided?
Are sample quantities, repetitions, equipment and chemicals used explicitly mentioned?
Is the statistical analysis appropriate to the study design?
Is the main viewpoint clearly and logically described in the discussion by comparing the existing literature and the research findings?
Are conflicts of interest disclosed？
Data from patient or animal assays should be properly documented.
Do you think the manuscript requires English editing to correct the grammar or fluency?
3. Managing Your Review
3.1 Confidential Material
Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the content of the manuscript, and shall not share confidential information with third parties during the course of the peer-review without the permission from the author, based on COPE guideline.
3.2 Timeliness
ILS is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication of high-quality research in the field of biomedical science. An efficient editorial process is considered a
valuable service both to our authors and to the research community. Reviewers therefore are encouraged to respond promptly within one to two weeks.
If reviewers anticipate a delay, please contact the Editorial office.
3.3 Comments to Editors
Comments to the Editor from reviewers will be contributed to guiding the Editors in making a final decision of the paper. Reports accompanied by comments and constructive criticism of the manuscript should be provided in the Comments to the Author by the reviewers.Comments to the editor should clarify whether the manuscript is original and important to a particular area of research, whether the research is flawed enough to prohibit publication, or whether editorial comments to elaborate,expand, or emphasize certain results are needed. Apart from recommendations of acceptance/ rejection/ minor revision/ major revision in manuscript, reviewers should notify the editor if they wish to make allegations of publication or research misconduct against an article they are reviewing:
(1) Do you find any published data from this paper?
(2) Do you notice any evidence of plagiarism?
(3) Do you think there is scientific fraud or that the authors fail to disclose any conflicts of interest?
(4) Do you have concerns about any violation of ethical treatment of human subjects?
3.4 Comments to Authors
Your comments to the authors may include the following judgments:
(1) The meaning and interest of the article to the reader.
(2) The originality and integrity of scientific work.
(3) The numbered comments should clarify the strengths and weaknesses of each item. Numbered comments (1, 2, 3, etc.) help editors communicate with authors, authors respond to reviewers, and re-review manuscripts.
(4) Ensure a sufficient, detailed and understandable recommendations be provided to the author.
(5) Is the article concise, clear, and well organized? Do all parts of the manuscript consistently describe the main ideas presented? Should the length of the article or section be shortened or expanded? Are the findings novel, compelling, and interesting?
(6) Even in cases where you think a manuscript has serious flaws, try to provide the author specific suggestions to help him improve it. In addition, be sure to identify the strengths of the paper and consider whether and how to salvage them.
(7) Sometimes you will receive a manuscript that is clearly written by a non-native English speaker. In such cases, be sure to make an effort to distinguish between the quality of the writing and the quality of the ideas. For insightful papers, writing problems can be solved at the revision stage.
(8) Make sure no identifying information of you as a reviewer is presented in your comments for the authors. Letterhead should not be used.
(9) Does the Introduction clearly state the research question or hypothesis?
(10) Are the methods and statistical designs valid for the questions under study? Are the methods up-to-date? Are the methods clearly presented so that other researchers can replicate the work? Are the sample sizes adequate? Are the statistical analyses appropriate to the study design?
(11) Are the results clearly summarized? Are data in the text and tables/figures consistent? Do tables/figures included in the manuscript convey necessary information? Is information needlessly repeated? Can some information be placed online-only?
(12) Are the figures and tables clear and legible? Are legends and titles clear?
(13) Are the conclusions in the Discussion section of the manuscript reasonable and the explanations plausible? Are the limitations of this study clear?
(14) Are the references cited relevant and up-to-date? Do they support factual assertions not mentioned in the data in this article?
3.5 Your Recommendation
When making your recommendations, please consider the categories the editor will likely use for classifying the article:
(1) Accept without revision.
(2) Accept with major/minor revisions(provide the author with clear explanation)
(3) Reject (explain your reasoning in your report).
Reason for rejection: 1) Flawed methods and results; 2) Insufficient explanation of the results; 3) Low academic value; 4) Other reasons.
Avoid including overall recommendations in your comments to the authors ("This paper is publishable", "This paper is unacceptable", "This paper should not be published", etc.). Provide general advice only in comments separately to the editor. The reviewer's comments can help editors make better decisions. However, the overall decision depends on overall reviews and journal's preferences and publication priorities.
3.6 Editorial Manager
ILS uses OJS online submission & editorial system to manage the peer review process. Our journals use different submission systems so there is no one generic login
link. Please select a journal name below and click to access the corresponding submission & editorial system, when you create or confirm an account, certain personal
information is required, such as your name and email address. Some journals may require or provide you the option to add other information, such as postal address,
institutional affiliation, ORCID ID, etc.
3.7 How to Access Your Review
Your review will be managed OJS online submission & editorial system. If you are invited to review, you will receive an email from the journal. If you accept the invitation, you will receive a follow up email with a link to start reviewing with access to the paper and relative proposed questions. Your review will be managed via the online submission & editorial system of the journal. You can contact the handling editor or the Editorial Office by email if you encounter any problems when accessing the articles.
4. Peer-Review and Editorial Procedure
(1) Preliminary review: before peer review, the editorial office may preliminary review all manuscripts and reject manuscripts that are not novel or not matched with the aims and scope of the specific journal.
(2) Peer review: a manuscript will be reviewed by at least two reviewers. The peer review process will help editors make better decisions.
(3) Editor decision and revision: in cases where only revisions are recommended, the author is usually requested to revise the paper before referring to the next round review. Articles may or may not be sent to reviewers after author revision, dependent on whether the reviewer requested to see the revised version and the wishes of the editor.