REVIEWER E-MAIL BOX

FRONTIERS IN BIOSCIENCE;
REVIEWER E-MAIL BOX

(This form requires a JavaScript-enabled browser)
If the reviewer does not think that the data are novel, then appropriate references that prove this point should be listed in the "comments to authors" section. 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 "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 a score of at least 75 (25 for each of the sections evaluated) will apply.
DATE
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Required)
YOUR FULL NAME
ORGANIZATION ADDRESS
TELEPHONE NUMBER
FAX NUMBER
FIRST AUTHOR'S FULL NAME
MANUSCRIPT NUMBER
SPECIFIC COMMENTS TO EDITORIAL OFFICE
SPECIFIC COMMENTS TO THE AUTHORS CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF SCIENCE AND PRESENTATION QUALITY OF MANUSCRIPTS For a manuscript in the category of research articles in basic and clinical science, or technical notes and protocols evaluate the manuscript as follows:
DATA ARE NOVEL	Yes: No:
METHODOLOGIES HAVE A SOUND BASIS	Yes: No:
PRESENTED DATA ARE ACCURATE	Yes: No:
PRIORITY SCORE FOR SCIENCE QUALITY	100: MAJOR CONTRIBUTION, 75: GOOD REQUIRING MINOR REVISIONS, 50: ACCEPTABLE AFTER MAJOR REVISIONS, 25: POOR
For a manuscript in the category of reviews in basic and clinical science, evaluate the manuscript as follows:
REVIEW IS TIMELY	Yes: No:
REVIEW IS NOVEL	Yes: No:
REVIEW IS COMPREHENSIVE	Yes: No:
REVIEW IS UP-TO DATE	Yes: No:
PRIORITY SCORE FOR SCIENCE QUALITY	100: MAJOR CONTRIBUTION, 75: GOOD REQUIRING MINOR REVISIONS, 50: ACCEPTABLE AFTER MAJOR REVISIONS, 25: POOR
PRIORITY SCORE FOR PRESENTATION QUALITY	100:EXCELLENT, 75: GOOD REQUIRING MINOR REVISIONS, 50: ACCEPTABLE AFTER MAJOR REVISIONS,25: POOR
FINAL DECISION: