International Journal of Bioelectromagnetism, IJBEM

Instructions for the Reviewers

1. The Aim of the Review Process

Conscientious peer review of manuscripts is usually a time-consuming task, but it is essential to ensure the high-quality of the content of the International Journal of Bioelectromagnetism, IJBEM. When reviewing a manuscript, please keep in mind that the purposes of the IJBEM are to document and improve the quality of the discipline of bioelectromagnetism. To be published, a manuscript must provide useful and valuable data or information for the international audience of the IJBEM is limited.
Reviewers are obliged to provide an expert, critical, and constructive scientific and literary appraisal of the manuscripts in a fair and unbiased manner. It is also the obligation of each reviewer to complete their review as soon as possible and return it to the Editor-in-Chief within four weeks. If a delay in the review occurs, the reviewer has the obligation to notify the Editor-in-Chief immediately.
Comments should be as complete and detailed as possible and contain clear opinions about the strengths, weaknesses, relevance, and importance of the manuscript to the field. Specific comments that cite manuscript sections, pages, paragraphs, or lines are most helpful. Comments should be constructive and suggestions should be offered to enhance the manuscript.
Each review of the manuscript shall include:
- Confidential comments to the Editor-in-Chief.
- General and specific comments to the authors.
It is good to point out both the positive and negative aspects of the manuscript. The authors will be asked to address each of your comments before the manuscript is accepted for publication.

2. Important Points for the Reviewers to Consider

The reviewers shall consider the following important points in the manuscript:
  • Is the topic of the manuscript appropriate for the IJBEM?
  • Is the information original?
  • Is the information of significant interest to the readers?
  • Ar the title and the abstract accurate and sufficiently descriptive of the content?
  • Is the purpose or objective clearly stated?
  • Are the structure and language acceptable?
  • Are the methods appropriate and scientifically sound?
  • If a manuscript is based on data, do the data represent an adequate population and is a valid statistical justification included to support the conclusions?
  • Are appropriate statistical tests used?
  • Are the tables and figures well designed, and do they add to the understanding of the text?
  • Is the redundancy of the information in the tables and figures avoided?
  • Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?
  • Does the discussion sufficiently consider various critical issues in the research?
  • Should the manuscript be abridged?
  • Are the references cited in the most appropriate way to support the manuscript?

3. Recommendations of the Reviewers

After careful consideration, each reviewer shall provide one of the following recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief regarding the manuscript:
  • Highly recommended - for high-quality manuscripts of high interest to most readers.
  • Recommended - for manuscripts of acceptable quality that are of interest to most readers.
For either of the above, indicate if the recommendation is unconditional or conditional upon modifications by the author. Conditional should be stated as "accepted after authors have considered suggestions" or "revisions needed before the decision can be made."
  • Not recommended (rejected) - for manuscripts of low quality or of low interest to readers.

4. What the Reviewers Shall not Do

The reviewers shall not do the following actions:
  • Reveal, cite, or in any way disclose information about a manuscript before publication.
  • Agree to review a manuscript if there is an actual or perceived conflict of interest. Potential conflicts can be discussed with the Editor-in-Chief.
It is permissible to request the assistance of colleagues in reviewing the manuscript. The names of the additional reviewers should be provided to the Editor-in-Chief.