|
|
| (8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{BEC page name}} | | {{BEC page name}} |
| :::: <big><big>'''Bioenergetics Communications''' is the Oroboros Ecosystem journal for publishing and sharing scientific and technical advances in bioenergetics, mitochondrial physiology, and particularly high-resolution respirometry</big></big>
| |
|
| |
|
| [[File:BEC-exlibris.png|right|340px|Bioenergetics Communications]]
| | :::: <big>Visit the the Bioenergetics Communications website for » [https://www.bioenergetics-communications.org/index.php/bec/board_of_reviewers '''BEC board of reviewers''' ]</big> |
| :::::::: '''<big>»[[Bioenerg Commun]]«</big>'''
| |
| __TOC__
| |
| :::: 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 ==
| | {{MitoPedia topics |
| | | |mitopedia topic=BEC |
| :::# Manuscript #
| | }} |
| :::# Submission Date
| |
| :::# Current Stage
| |
| :::# Title
| |
| :::# Category
| |
| :::# Contributing Authors
| |
| :::# Associate Editor
| |
| | |
| == Recommendation ==
| |
| | |
| === BEC spedific ===
| |
| ::::* Is the topic suitable for the journal's aims and scope?
| |
| :::# Yes
| |
| :::# 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 ===
| |
| :::# Original
| |
| :::# Confirmatory
| |
| :::# Too preliminary
| |
| :::# 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 ===
| |
| :::# Innovative
| |
| :::# Advanced
| |
| :::# Standard
| |
| :::# Inadequate
| |
| | |
| === Presentation of the data ===
| |
| :::# Adequate
| |
| :::# Not appropriate
| |
| | |
| === Conclusions ===
| |
| :::# Justified
| |
| :::# Too speculative
| |
| :::# Unjustified
| |
| | |
| === References ===
| |
| :::# Adequate
| |
| :::# Incomplete
| |
| :::# 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 ===
| |
| :::# Well prepared
| |
| :::# Poor
| |
| :::# 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 ===
| |
| :::# Clear and concise
| |
| :::# Clumsy
| |
| :::# Too long
| |
| | |
| === Language ===
| |
| :::# Acceptable
| |
| :::# In need of minor corrections
| |
| :::# In need of language editing
| |
| | |
| === Length of the manuscript ===
| |
| :::# Adequate
| |
| :::# Too short
| |
| :::# 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 ===
| |
| | |
| :::# Accept
| |
| :::# Minor revision
| |
| :::# Major revision
| |
| :::# Reject
| |
| | |
| === Overall evaluation ===
| |
| :::# Excellent
| |
| :::# Good
| |
| :::# Average
| |
| :::# 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?
| |
| :::# Yes
| |
| :::# No
| |
| :::# 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.
| |
| :::# Strengths:
| |
| :::# 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.
| |
| | |
| | |
| [[File:BEC-exlibris.png|left|200px|Bioenergetics Communications]]
| |
| == Bioenergetics Communications is part of the H2020 NextGen-O2k project ==
| |
| {{NextGen-O2k H2020-support}}
| |
| | |
| | |
| [[Category:Mitochondrial Global Network]]
| |
- ISSN 2791-4690
