•  
  •  
 

Instructions for Reviewers

The reviewer report should comprehensively critique the submission and consist of much more than a few brief sentences. Journal does not require a specific structure for reports, however, a suggested format is:

  • Summary
  • Major issues
  • Minor issues

We encourage reviewers to help authors improve their manuscript. The report should give constructive analysis to authors, particularly where revisions are recommended. Where reviewers do not wish authors to see certain comments, these can be added to the confidential comments to the Academic Editor.

While expectations vary by discipline, some core aspects that should be critiqued by reviewers may include:

  • Are the research questions valid?
  • Is the sample size sufficient?
  • Is there necessary ethical approval and/or consent and was the research ethical?
  • Are the methods and study design appropriate for answering the research question?
  • Do the experiments have appropriate controls?
  • Is the reporting of the methods, including any equipment and materials, sufficiently detailed that the research might be reproduced?
  • Are any statistical tests used appropriate and correctly reported?
  • Are the figures and tables clear and do they accurately represent the results?
  • Has previous research by the authors and others been discussed and have those results been compared to the current results?
  • Are there any inappropriate citations, for example, not supporting the claim being made or too many citations to the authors' own articles?
  • Do the results support the conclusions?
  • Are limitations of the research acknowledged?
  • Is the abstract an accurate summary of the research and results, without spin?
  • Is the language clear and understandable?

To help authors receive timely reviews, reviewer reports should be submitted via the manuscript tracking system on or before the agreed deadline. Reviewers should contact the Editor if they are unable to meet the deadline so an alternative date can be arranged.

We encourage reviewers to focus their reports on objectively critiquing the scientific aspects of the submission, including the soundness of the methodology and whether the conclusions can be supported by the results. At the end of their review, we ask reviewers to recommend one of the following actions:

  • Publish Unaltered
  • Consider after Minor Changes
  • Consider after Major Changes
  • Reject

Peer Review

All manuscripts are subjected to peer review and are expected to meet the standards of academic excellence. If approved by the editor, submissions will be considered by peer reviewers, whose identities will remain anonymous to the authors and vice versa, identities of authors will remain anonymous to the reviewers (Double-blind peer review). The decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript is the responsibility of the editorial board and is based on the recommendations of the reviewers (peer-reviewed process).

Our Research Integrity team will occasionally seek advice outside standard peer review, for example, on submissions with serious ethical, security, biosecurity, or societal implications. We may consult experts and the academic editor before deciding on appropriate actions, including but not limited to recruiting reviewers with specific expertise, assessment by additional editors, and declining to further consider a submission.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline to review a submission when they:

  • Have a recent publication or current submission with any author
  • Share or have recently shared an affiliation with any author
  • Collaborate or have recently collaborated with any author
  • Have a close personal connection to any author
  • Have a financial interest in the subject of the work
  • Feel unable to be objective

Reviewers must declare any remaining interests in the ‘Confidential’ section of the review form, which will be considered by the editor.

Reviewers must declare if they have previously discussed the manuscript with the authors.

Reviewers are encouraged to comment on authors’ declared conflicts of interest. If there are concerns that authors have not fully disclosed financial, institutional, commercial, personal, ideological, or academic interests, this should be raised in the reviewer report.

References Style

In accordance with the Vancouver referencing style, authors submitting manuscripts to the NJF Biomedicine Journal (NJF-BMJ) are required to follow strict citation guidelines for both articles and books. All references within the manuscript must be numbered consecutively in the order of their appearance and cited in square brackets. For articles, the author's last name followed by initials, the article title, journal name abbreviated, publication year, volume, issue (if applicable), and page range should be included. For books, the author(s) or editor(s), book title, edition (if applicable), place of publication, publisher, publication year, and page range (if applicable) should be provided. The full list of references should be provided at the end of the manuscript, numbered in the same order as they appear in the text. Authors are encouraged to utilize reference management programs such as Mendeley or EndNote to ensure accuracy and consistency in citation formatting. Proper adherence to the Vancouver style is crucial for maintaining the scholarly integrity and uniformity of publications within the NJF-BMJ.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary materials, including applications, images, and sound clips, are welcome for publication alongside your article to augment it. These materials will be published in their original format (for instance, Excel or PowerPoint files will be presented as is online). We request that you submit these supplementary items concurrently with your manuscript, providing a brief and informative caption for each file. If there is a need to modify supplementary materials at any stage, please provide a revised file rather than marking changes on an earlier version. Additionally, ensure the 'Track Changes' feature is deactivated in Microsoft Office documents, as these changes will be visible in the final published version.