BEC reviewers

MitoPedia: BEC

MitoPedia: Gentle Science

MitoFit Preprints

DOI Data Center

Bioenergetics Communications is the Open Science journal on bioenergetics and mitochondrial physiology with Living Communications - ISSN 2791-4690

BEC reviewers

Bioenergetics Communications is the Oroboros Ecosystem journal for publishing and sharing scientific and technical advances in bioenergetics, mitochondrial physiology, and particularly high-resolution respirometry

:::::::: »Bioenerg Commun«

The following questions have been adapted from the reviewer forms of the Journal of Applied Physiology and Pflugers Archive European Journal of Physiology.

• BEC-specific recommendations are highlighted.

Reviewer's assessment

1. Manuscript #
2. Submission Date
3. Current Stage
4. Title
5. Category
6. Contributing Authors
7. Associate Editor

Recommendation

BEC spedific

• Is the topic suitable for the journal's aims and scope?

1. Yes
2. No

• BEC does not ask for revisions on the basis of additionally suggested experiments. Reviewers are asked to comment exclusively on the content of a manuscript submitted for publication. Cooperative reviewers may offer to contribute their own additional results and join as coauthors.

Scientific content

1. Original
2. Confirmatory
3. Too preliminary
4. Trivial

• BEC considers confirmatory results as highly valuable; publication of confirmatory results is the key approach to communicate reproducibility.
• BEC accepts preliminary results, particularly in conjunction with testing of experimental procedures. 'Too preliminary' should be evaluated, however, with respect to the conclusions (see below).

Experimental approach

1. Innovative
2. Advanced
3. Standard
4. Inadequate

Presentation of the data

1. Adequate
2. Not appropriate

Conclusions

1. Justified
2. Too speculative
3. Unjustified

References

1. Adequate
2. Incomplete
3. Too many

• BEC may recommend to move excessive numbers of references from the manuscript (pdf) to the publication page under 'Supplementary references'. Each reference may be followed by a short comment.

Figures and tables

1. Well prepared
2. Poor
3. Too many

• BEC may recommend to move excessive numbers of figures and tables from the manuscript (pdf) to the publication page under 'Supplementary figures and tables'. Each supplementary figure and table has to be explained briefly and is preferentially placed into a Supplement section (see below).

Abstract

1. Clear and concise
2. Clumsy
3. Too long

Language

1. Acceptable
2. In need of minor corrections
3. In need of language editing

Length of the manuscript

1. Adequate
2. Too short
3. Too long

• BEC may recommend to move excessive text from the manuscript (pdf) to the publication page under 'Supplement A', 'Supplement B', etc. Each supplementary section is referred to in the main text, has a short title, and may have a list of authors that is more specific than the complete list of authors of the main manuscript.

General rating

1. Accept
2. Minor revision
3. Major revision
4. Reject

Overall evaluation

1. Excellent
2. Good
3. Average
4. Poor

Ethics questions

• For animal studies and human studies, has ethical approval been obtained and so stated in the paper? For human studies has obtaining of written, informed subject consent been noted in the paper?

1. Yes
2. No
3. N/A

Review comments

• Confidential comments to the editor

• Please elaborate on your evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and how the research will contribute to the field.

1. Strengths:
2. Weaknesses:

• Open review

• Include in your critique your judgment of the significance of the findings, the clarity of the rationale and hypotheses, accuracy of the experimental design, methods and statistical analysis, quality of data presentation, length and quality of Discussion, and inclusion of appropriate references.

• Please make clear any specific comments for revision.

Bioenergetics Communications is part of the H2020 NextGen-O2k project