DATE
 

E-MAIL ADDRESS (Required)


REVIEWER'S FULL NAME
 

ADDRESS OF REVIEWER'S ORGANIZATION



TELEPHONE NUMBER


FAX NUMBER


FIRST AUTHOR'S FULL NAME
 

MANUSCRIPT NUMBER


SPECIFIC COMMENTS TO EDITORIAL OFFICE



SPECIFIC COMMENTS TO THE AUTHORS




CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF SCIENCE
 
AND PRESENTATION QUALITY OF MANUSCRIPTS 


For a manuscript in the category of research articles in basic and clinical science, 
 or technical notes and protocols evaluate the manuscript as follows:

DATA ARE NOVEL 
Yes:  No: 
 
METHODOLOGIES HAVE A SOUND BASIS 
Yes:  No: 

PRESENTED DATA ARE ACCURATE 
Yes:  No: 

PRIORITY SCORE FOR SCIENCE QUALITY


100: MAJOR CONTRIBUTION,  75: GOOD REQUIRING MINOR REVISIONS,
50: ACCEPTABLE AFTER MAJOR REVISIONS, 25: POOR
 
 

If the reviewer does not think that the data are novel, then appropriate
 references that prove this point should be listed in the  "comments to 
authors" section. Similarly, if the reviewer finds problems with 
methodologies or the presented data, the specific comments regarding
 these aspects of the manuscript should be listed in the "comments to 
authors" section. If the reviewer feels that the presented data are novel,
 the methodologies have a sound basis and there is no specific problem 
with the presented data, then a score of at least 75 (25 for each of the
 sections evaluated) will apply. 
 

For a manuscript in the category of reviews in basic and clinical science,   
evaluate the manuscript as follows: 


REVIEW IS TIMELY 
Yes:  No: 

REVIEW IS NOVEL 
Yes:  No: 

REVIEW IS COMPREHENSIVE 
Yes:  No: 

REVIEW IS UP-TO DATE 
Yes:  No: 

PRIORITY SCORE FOR SCIENCE QUALITY



100: MAJOR CONTRIBUTION,  75: GOOD REQUIRING MINOR REVISIONS,
50: ACCEPTABLE AFTER MAJOR REVISIONS, 25: POOR


PRIORITY SCORE FOR PRESENTATION QUALITY


100:EXCELLENT, 75: GOOD REQUIRING MINOR REVISIONS,
50: ACCEPTABLE AFTER MAJOR REVISIONS,25: POOR

FINAL DECISION: 
No Revisions
Minor Revisions
Major Revisions
Reject