Writing a report

The primary purpose of referees' reports is to provide the editor with the information needed to reach a decision, but they should also instruct the authors on how to strengthen their manuscript if revision is a possibility.

Organize your review so that an introductory paragraph summarizes the major findings of the article, gives your overall impression of the paper, and highlights the major shortcomings. This paragraph should be followed by specific, numbered comments, which, if appropriate, may be subdivided into major and minor points.

Use of AI tools
Reviewers are responsible for keeping the confidentiality of data through the process of evaluation until the final decision is made. This must be kept in mind if using any LLM tools. Large parts of manuscript containing confidential information must not be copied into LLM-based tools. Reviewers are allowed to use only the tools that can assist in formatting language and style, they must not use AI tools to generate review reports.

The report should answer the following questions:

  • is the manuscript suitable for the Journal (see FTB Aims and Scope)?
  • is it written according to the Journal's instructions (see Manuscript Organization)?
  • is it well written, clear, precise and easy to understand?
  • have the authors previously published a similar paper and are there already many reports on the same topic published by other authors?
  • are all relevant criteria satisfied to ensure the reproducibility and replicability of the research, e.g. clear description of methods, materials and equipment, results interpreted correctly and clearly, among others?
  • are there any ethical concerns? Does the study need ethical approval and have the authors provided necessary documentation? Have the authors followed the ethical standards determined by the journal? 
  • are the results statistically analysed using appropriate statistical methods and are they presented well and interpreted correctly?
  • what are the major claims and how significant, novel and convincing are they?
  • are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of earlier literature?
  • is the study of interest to more than a specialised audience?
  • does the paper stand out in some way from the others in its field?
  • are there other experiments that would strengthen the paper?

For manuscripts that may merit further consideration, it is also helpful if referees can provide advice on the following points where appropriate:

  • how the clarity of the writing might be improved (without necessarily going into specific details of spelling and grammar).
  • how the manuscript might be extended or shortened.
  • how to do the study justice without overselling the claims.
  • how to improve the presentation of methodological detail so that the experiments can be reproduced.
  • what experiments the authors could conduct to strengthen the research.

The manuscript should be evaluated according to interest, novelty, technical quality and suitability. Additional comments to the editor need to include:

  • a definite recommendation regarding publication (which should be clearly marked in the Referee's note)
  • an assessment of how much any suggested additional experiments would improve the manuscript, and how difficult they would be to complete within a reasonable timeframe (3 months)
  • in cases where the manuscript is unacceptable in its present form, an opinion about whether the study is sufficiently promising to encourage a new submission in the future.

Based on the evaluation according to the above criteria, the following decisions can be made:

  • Accept - only if there are no requirements for revision.
  • Minor revision - if minor changes are requested that can be completed in a relatively short timeframe (15–20 days), e.g. language revision, improvement of the discussion, formatting the text and references according to the instructions, inclusion of additional data, minor revision of data presentation, and similar.
  • Major revision - if a more thorough revision is required, e.g. more focused introduction, a more detailed description of materials and methods, revision of tables and figures, a more in-depth discussion, more concise conclusions, inclusion of more recent and relevant references, if there is insufficient information regarding ethics approval (where applicable), funding, conflicts of interest, use of AI tools, or authors' contributions. The authors should be able to complete the revision within a reasonable timeframe (up to 30 days).
    If the required revision is so extensive that it cannot be completed within a reasonable timeframe, requires additional experiments or extensive restructuring of the entire manuscript, and the manuscript still merits publication, a rejection with the possibility of resubmission is advised (please write it in your comments to editor).
  • Reject for publication - if the manuscript is not acceptable for publication due to repetition of already published data, lack of novelty or relevance, major errors in the premise or methodology, breach of research integrity, lack of ethics approval (where applicable), and similar.


When uploading your comments to the COMET submission system, if you need to enclose a document with additional comments, please check whether the document is attached before clicking the send button.

If you need more information about the review process, you can consult Peer Review Toolkit compiled by the Peer Review Committee of EASE.

Reviewers' recommendations are gratefully received by the editor; however, since editorial decisions are based on evaluations derived from several sources, reviewers should not expect the editor to consider every recommendation.

 

«« | Receiving a Manuscript for Review                                                                                                   Conflict of Interest | »»