Reviewer Guideline

• In addition, reviewers may not use the unpublished information described in manuscripts they are reviewing as resources for their own research interests. Likewise, these data, methods, or hypotheses should not influence financial decisions, such as buying or selling stocks. Information that has already been presented as an abstract, at a conference, or in another publication is considered public knowledge and does not require this privileged treatment.
• Reviewers must preserve the confidentiality of unpublished work. Any manuscript or abstract sent for peer review is a confidential document and remains so until it is formally published. In some instances, reviewers may feel that it would be helpful to obtain additional advice from a colleague. In such cases, we ask that the reviewer contact the editor in advance to ensure that the editor has the opportunity to take additional information into account before permitting communications that have the potential to violate confidentiality. It is not appropriate to discuss unpublished manuscripts at laboratory meetings or journal clubs. Reviewers can collaborate with trainees (graduate students and post-docs) in the evaluation of manuscripts, and we appreciate that such collaboration functions as an important training exercise. However, we ask that reviewers keep the number of collaborators to a minimum and include the identities of all the individuals involved in the “comments to the editors” component of their review. Regardless, the person originally invited to review the manuscript is ultimately responsible for maintaining confidentiality and for the content and accuracy of the report. We encourage referees to inform collaborating reviewers about appropriate guidelines and ethics for peer review, as outlined in this document.

Reviewing (or re-reviewing) revised manuscripts

• For the sake of editorial consistency and fairness to the authors, we request that referees who agree to review one version of a given manuscript also commit to reviewing future revisions if necessary. In an effort to minimize the resulting burden, we make every effort to handle revisions editorially and to curtail unproductive resubmission cycles.

Points to be considered in review

• Reviewers should address the points below and indicate whether they consider any required revisions to be ‘Huge revisions', 'minor revisions', 'without revisions' or REJECT. In general, revisions are likely to be 'Major compulsory revisions' if additional controls are required to support the claims or the interpretations are not supported by the data, if further analysis is required that may change the conclusions, or if the methods used are inadequate or statistical errors have been made.

1. Is the question posed original, important and well defined? The research question posed by the authors should be easily identifiable and understood. It is useful to both the editors and authors if reviewers comment on the originality and importance of the study within the context of its field. If the research question is unoriginal because related work has been published previously, please give references. Reviewers should ask themselves after reading the manuscript if they have learnt something new and if there is a clear conclusion from the study. 2. Are the data sounds and well controlled? If you feel that inappropriate controls have been used please say so, indicating the reasons for your concerns, and suggesting alternative  controls where appropriate. If you feel that further experimental/clinical evidence is required to substantiate the results, please provide details.