Quality peer review is a critical element of scholarly publication, and one of the major cornerstones of the scientific process. Peer review serves two key functions:

• Acts as a filter: ensures the research is properly verified before being published
• Improves the quality of the research: rigorous review by other experts helps to hone key points and correct inadvertent errors.

Peer review is an important process of evaluation, designed to keep the quality of scholarly work high. The process aims to give constructive feedback to the authors, so that their work can become of the highest academic standard possible. Peer reviews are also helping editors to decide the paper’s suitability for publication in the journal.

For more information please read Reviewers’ responsibilities (NFM Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement).

Double blind peer review
This journal maintains a double-blind peer review policy, in which both the reviewer and the author are anonymous, i.e. neither the reviewers nor the authors know each other’s names. To facilitate this, the editors anonymize their manuscripts and evaluations to ensure that their identity is not been given away. However, the reviewers may choose to reveal their identity to the author(s) and request so from the editors.

Reviewer eligibility
Reviewers are chosen based on suggestions from the article authors, with the editorial team ensuring that they are experts in the field and able to assess the specific qualities of the work. Journal encourages authors to suggest people who they know to be experts in their field of research.
Before accepting the editor’s invitation for a review, reviewers should consider the following questions:

• Does the manuscript they are being asked to review truly match their expertise?
• Do they have time to review the manuscript?
• Are there any potential conflicts of interest?

Peer review is an invaluable contribution to the scientific community, and we are very appreciative of the work our reviewers do for the journal.

Peer reviewer code of conduct
To help ensure that peer review is constructive and beneficial to authors and readers, journal asks that reviewers:

• Read the article fully – please read the full text of the article and view all associated figures, tables and data
• Be thorough – a peer review report should discuss the article in full as well as individual points, and should demonstrate your understanding of the article
• Be specific – your comments should contain as much detail as possible, with references where appropriate, so the authors are able to fully address the issue
• Be constructive in your criticism – do not hesitate to include any concerns or criticisms you may have in your review, however, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner
• Avoid derogatory comments or tone – review as you wish to be reviewed and ensure that your comments focus on the scientific content of the article in question rather than the authors themselves
• Be timely – please provide review reports in a timely manner, to provide a high quality publishing service that benefits the scientific community
• Respect intellectual independence of authors – the purpose of peer review is not to demonstrate the reviewer’s proficiency in identifying flaws. Reviewers have the responsibility to identify strengths and provide constructive comments to help the author resolve weaknesses in the work (Council of Science Editors – Reviewer Roles and Responsibilities).

Journal also recommends that reviewers familiarise themselves with the COPE’s Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.

Conflicts of interest
If a reviewer holds a conflict of interest that may prejudice the review report, the reviewer can contact the editorial office or reject the review invitation. Conflict of interests occur when professional judgement is influenced by another interest, for example a financial relationship, an intellectual belief or a personal relationship or rivalry. To keep the standards of credibility high, journal asks reviewers to be aware of a potential conflict of interest and to inform editors about it. Editors and reviewers should attempt to recognize and avoid all real or potential conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety.
Reviewer Objectivity and Accountability
Regardless of whether a review is signed or anonymous, reviewers are accountable for their reviews and should be objective in their comments

Confidentiality
Manuscripts submitted to journal are treated as privileged information. Reviewers should never share the content of the manuscript, including the abstract, with someone else. Double blind peer review is a confidential process in which both the author and reviewer should be careful to keep the content confidential.
Information gained via the review process must not subsequently be used by editors or reviewers to produce a competitive advantage in future publications or grant applications.
Information contained in manuscripts is confidential until accepted for publication.

Publication decision
Editors are responsible for deciding whether or not the reviewed paper will be published. The editors make the final decision regarding the disposition of manuscripts after weighing comments from the reviewers and assessing the authors’ revision of their article in response to the reviewer comments. Ultimately, the editors’ recommendation should not be based on a tally of positive and negative comments from reviewers, but rather on the editor’s informed, objective appraisal of the likelihood that the manuscript will contribute reliable and valid new information to the discipline. The editor’s recommendations should be informed by comments provided by reviewers, which are integrated with the editor’s own consideration of all aspects of the manuscript. In making the final decision the editors may confer with other editors or reviewers.

Identifying and reporting misconduct
Reviewers are asked to identify papers where research misconduct has or seems to have occurred and inform the editorial board, which will deal with each case accordingly. Although editors and reviewers are not obligated to search for possibilities of scientific misconduct in manuscripts under review, it is their duty, during their review process, to be mindful of any signs suggesting the possibility of a breach of ethical research practices.

All manuscripts submitted to journal are initially assessed by the editors. Each paper considered suitable (regarding scope of the journal) is then sent to two independent reviewers and undergoes a double blind peer review process. Reviewers are usually suggested by the authors, with the editorial team ensuring that they are experts in the field and able to assess the specific qualities of the work.

Potential reviewers are by e-mail receiving an invitation to review a manuscript together with the Reviewers’ form and the document of the paper they are asked to evaluate. Reviewers who recognize that they are not qualified to review a particular manuscript, are in a conflict of interest, or can’t provide the review report in a timely manner should refrain from accepting the invitation and eventually suggest other relevant experts i.e. reviewers.

After accepting the editor’s invitation for a review, reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly and professionally. The goal of the review process is to improve the scientific quality of the submission and to provide recommendations that will help the editor to make the final decision. Reviewing is conducted confidentially. Reviewers should not discuss the manuscript with anyone other than the editor. Also, the reviewer will be anonymous to the author unless he wishes otherwise.

The review report should contain the key elements of reviewers’ evaluation, addressing the points outlined in the preceding section. Commentaries should be courteous and constructive and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including your name. Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. Reviewers should explain and support their judgment so that both editors and authors are better able to understand the basis of the comments. Reviewers should indicate whether their comments are their own opinion or reflected by data.

The whole reviewing process is usually facilitated and carried out by using the appropriate Review form and guidelines for referees. Reviews should be submitted online by visiting Registration/Login page, or by completing a report form in Word and e-mailing it to the journal editorial office. When completing and submitting their report, the reviewers should state if they want to check authors’ response to their comments and re-evaluate the article revisions.

Timeliness is an important element of the review process, and the reviewers should conduct the review and deliver their evaluation in the shortest period possible.

The reviewers are invited by e-mail to review a submission. Together with the e-mail invitation they receive the Reviewers’ form and the paper they are asked to evaluate in a proposed deadline.

Once reviewers accept their review assignment, they evaluate the article on a number of criteria. In the Reviewers’ form journal provides detailed guidance for reviewers that helps them in assessing the article. The following items are offered as guidelines for the review:

Relevance of the paper

• originality and significance of the paper
• general and international interest of the results

Contents of the paper

• clearly stated and unambiguous aim of the paper
• clear and concise presentation of data
• proper study design
• presentation of methods
• results responding to the aim of the study
• relevant and adequate discussion
• citation of pertinent literature

Formal quality

• informative and clear title
• logical structure (abstract, introduction, methodology, results, conclusions)
• good statement and language
• appropriate extent of the paper
• improvement in tables and figures

Reviewers use these criteria in determining the merit of the paper. In general reviewers will be checking that the work is original or new, that the study design and methodology are appropriate and described so that others could replicate what has been done, that the results are presented clearly and appropriately, that the conclusions are reliable and significant, and that the work is of a high enough standard to be published in the journal.

Reviewers’ report includes writing a general evaluation of the paper, providing detailed comments if necessary, and giving a recommendation. Apart on the Reviewer’s form reviewers can give their detailed comments in a separate document or directly in the evaluated manuscript and send it to the editors.

When making the Recommendation on a manuscript, reviewers choose one of the following options:

Accept as it is – Accept paper in its present form. Some minor copy-editing may still be required, but it will be caught at the copyediting stage so the authors need not submit a revision.

Minor Revision – The manuscript is generally good but requires minor content and/or editorial changes before its suitable for publication. Revised manuscripts do not require another review by the reviewers.

Major Revision – The paper contains one or more serious problems in substance or form, whose resolution might result in a generally acceptable manuscript. Resubmitted manuscripts typically are reviewed again by the Editor and reviewers.

Reject – The content, style, and/or preparation of the manuscript are flawed to the extent that it is unlikely that revisions can render the manuscript suitable for publication. The content of the manuscript might also be unsuitable or inappropriate for the journal.

Reviewers finish their assignment by completing the Reviewer’s form and submitting it via e-mail or by visiting Registration/Login page and submitting it online. When completing and submitting review, the reviewers can state if they want to reveal their identity to the authors.

Reviewers accepting to review a paper are kindly requested to submit their report within three weeks.

Reviews should be submitted by visiting the Registration/Login page (submitting online), or by filling out a Reviewers’ form in Word and e-mailing the review report to the Editorial Office of NFM.