Reviewers

Reviewers’ Guidelines:

Referees are asked to consider the criteria listed below when evaluating a manuscript.

 

Introduction

The review process in peer-review journals is an important step of the publication process of a manuscript. It helps an editor in making decision on an article and also enables the author to improve the manuscript.

Before accepting to review a manuscript reviewers should ensure that:

  1. The manuscript is within their area of expertise and scope of HPN journal
  2. Scientific accuracy, including statistical analysis (very important). Referees may request that the manuscript to be sent to a specialist statistical reviewer, and we welcome recommendations from referees of appropriate experts.
  3. The research material and methods should be appropriate, and evidence is provided with scientific references.
  4. Academic writing style and accessibility for a wide audience.
  5. Use of suitable illustrations, tables and supplementary material to illustrate results.
  6. Appropriate length, each article should be of the shortest length required to contain all useful and relevant information.
  7. Ethics — any ethical concerns should be included in the referee's report.
  8. Clearly of information — manuscript must include appropriate statements on: authors’ contributions, competing interests, ethics (where relevant), data accessibility and funding.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts are trusted materials given to a reviewer in trust for the sole purpose of critical evaluation. Reviewers should ensure that the review processes is totally confidential. The details of the manuscript and the review process should keep confidential.

Plagiarism

Reviewers are seriously asked to control plagiarism. ‘The practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own’ Oxford Dictionaries

Other criteria 

Reviewers should not be influenced by:

• The origin of the manuscript

• Religious, political or cultural viewpoint of the author

• Gender, race, ethnicity or citizenry of the author

Reviewer’s report

  1. Originality of manuscript
  2. Contribution to the scope of journal
  3. Technical quality, statistical method
  4. Clarity of data presentation
  5. Depth of research or mechanistic