PEER REVIEW AT BENTHAM SCIENCE

Book manuscripts submitted for publication to Bentham Science are subjected to single blind peer-review. This is an essential step in the publication decision making process. By not disclosing their names to the authors, Single blind reviewing maintains the anonymity of the reviewers. The anonymity of reviewers ensures objective and unbiased assessment of the manuscript by reviewers. We recommend that reviewers review Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers to provide quality unbiased review reports.

The decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a book is based on review reports submitted by the peer reviewers.

SELECTION OF REVIEWERS

External reviewers are selected from a pool of researchers who have published works indexed in PubMed and Web of Science, depending on the field of expertise relevant to the scope of the book.

POINTS TO CONSIDER WHEN REVIEWING EXPERIMENTAL WORK

Reviewers are advised to consider the following important aspects of a manuscript when conducting the review.

1. Reporting of Original Results:

The results reported in the manuscript must be original and should represent authentic work of the authors. They should be devoid of any plagiarism and the material should not have been published earlier. Studies which report some reproduced results, for example, a new clinical trial, may also be considered for publication.

2. Experiments and Analyses:

Experiments and other analyses should meet the recognized technical standards and must be described systematically. The research presented in a manuscript should facilitate in reaching accurate conclusions from the statistics. Methods and experiments, as well as reagents, should be documented in detail.

3. Interpretation of Results:

Authors should present and interpret the results and conclusions in an appropriate and comprehensive manner, clearly explaining the results and outcomes of their study. Incomplete interpretation of results may result in rejection of the manuscript.

4. Language:

The manuscript should be written in English in a clear, direct and active style, free from grammatical errors and other linguistic inconsistencies. All pages should be numbered sequentially, facilitating the reviewing and editing of the manuscript. Authors should seek professional assistance for correction of grammatical, scientific and typographical errors before submission of the revised version of manuscripts for publication. Professional editing services may also be sought by the team available at Bentham Science at an extra charge.

POINTS TO CONSIDER WHEN GIVING FEEDBACK

Reviewers are expected to provide advice on the following points in their review reports:

  • Does the title represent book contents?
  • Is the manuscript written comprehensively enough to be understandable? If not, how could it be improved?
  • Have adequate proofs been provided for the declarations?
  • Have the authors addressed the previous findings fairly?
  • Does the book or paper (in case of a book chapter) offer enough details of its methodology to reproduce the experiments?
  • Bentham Science encourages authors to publish detailed protocols as supporting information online. Do any particular methods shown in the manuscript warrant such a protocol?
  • Are the conclusions and interpretations sound?
  • Is the book a useful contribution to the relevant scientific field?
  • Does the book fill an information gap/market need? (A detailed explanation is requested)
  • What makes this book special?
  • What audience do you think this book will appeal to the most? If this book is suitable for classroom use, what grade would you use it for?
  • Is the table of contents complete and does it contain all the relevant topics?

PRIVACY STATEMENT

The peer-review of a manuscript is a confidential process. Reviewers should keep the whole process completely confidential. Reviewers should not disclose any information whatsoever to anyone before publication of the manuscript.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Bentham Science respects requests for not having the manuscripts peer-reviewed by those experts who may have a competing interest with the author(s) of a submitted manuscript. We expect reviewers to inform the Editorial manager if they notice any potential competing interest during review of a manuscript. Reviewers are not encouraged to contact authors directly regarding any of their conflict of interest. They should inform the editorial manager in case

  • they work at the same institution as any of the authors
  • they will be joining that institution or are applying for a job there
  • they are or have been recent (e.g., within the past 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders
  • they have a close personal relationship with any of the authors