Recommendation
- No recommendation
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
- Revise as Short Communication
Reviewer Blind Comments to Author
Reviewer Confidential Comments to Editor
For each question, please use the following scale to answer (place an x in the space provided):
"To what extent does the article meet this criterion?"
0 Fails by a large amount
1 Fails by a small amount
2 Succeeds by a small amount
3 Succeeds by a large amount
4 Not applicable
The subject addressed in this article is worthy of investigation.
0 __1 __2 __3 __4__
The information presented was new.
0 __1 __2 __3 __4__
The conclusions were supported by the data.
0 __1 __2 __3 __4
Is there a financial or other conflict of interest between your work and that of the authors?
YES __ NO __
Please give a frank account of the strengths and weaknesses of the article:
Other Article categories by reviewers:
- Major Compulsory Revisions (which the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
- Discretionary Revisions (which are recommendations for improvement but which the author can choose to ignore)
- Accept without revision
- Accept after discretionary revisions (which the authors can choose to ignore)
- Accept after minor essential revisions (which the authors can be trusted to make)
- Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major compulsory revisions
- Reject as not sufficiently sound
- Reject as not of sufficient priority to merit publishing in this journal
No comments:
Post a Comment