Reviewer Form

Fields marked with a * are required

Managing editor (first and last name) * $Input \$

Managing editor's email * $Input \$

Submission date *

REVIEWER INFORMATION

Reviewer (first and last name) *

Organization and address of the reviewer

Reviewer's email address *

Reviewer's telephone number *

Reviewer's fax number

AUTHOR INFORMATION

First author (first and last name) *

Corresponding author (first and last name) *

Author's email address *

Author's telephone number *

Author's fax number

Manuscript number (first and last name of corresponding author, ie: janedoe) *

REVIEW

Review is timely *

Review is novel *

Review is comprehensive *

Review is up-to-date *

Review is of high quality *

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Sound method *

Novel data *

Accurate data *

High quality presentation *

Manuscript is of high quality *

DECISION

Review date *

Priority score for science quality *

Specific comments to editorial office

If the reviewer does not think that the data are novel, then appropriate references that prove this point should be listed in the \"specific comments to authors\" section (the section that follows). 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 \"specific 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 \"Accepted\" category will apply.

Specific comments to authors

4 + 6 = *

Reviewer Form

REVIEWER INFORMATION

AUTHOR INFORMATION

REVIEW

RESEARCH ARTICLE

DECISION

Search FBS

Order a Reprint

Advertisement