Guidelines for Reviewers
microPublications are single research findings with the report containing a brief textual description of the experiment, methods, and controls, usually containing a single figure and/or table. microPublication Biology accepts all experimental findings, independent of subjective evaluation of its perceived impact on the field. Peer review is employed by microPublication Biology to assess whether the microPublication is technically sound and the conclusions justified. Given these criteria, review by a scientist in the field is expected to require minimal time and effort.
Reviewers should evaluate the microPublication for the following:
- Are results technically sound and adhere to reporting guidelines and community standards?
- Do those data, and related information (e.g. statistical analysis) support the conclusions drawn?
- Are the experiments sufficiently explained/referenced so that the findings can be reproduced by other researchers?
- Is the microPublication presented in a logical progression, in standard English and with appropriate nomenclature?
The reviewer should accept, accept with modification, or reject the manuscript. Written comments should explain acceptance, rejection, or detail modifications that should be made. If modifications are requested, each point the author is to address should be enumerated.
It is not generally expected that the authors would need to perform additional experiments. However, on occasion important information that is necessary for solidifying a conclusion is missing from a submitted manuscript; for example whether the analysis was performed with a second allele or, while there were technical replicates, were there also biological replicates? In such a case, the reviewer should request the relevant information. If the relevant information is not available, then the authors are required to qualify their conclusion, based on the missing information. An example qualification “However, because only a single allele was analyzed, this conclusion should be considered as preliminary.” Here, microPublication Biology believes that getting findings rapidly out to the community assists in advancing the scientific mission, but that it is important to be transparent about limitations that make a conclusion preliminary.
Reviewers are asked to declare any conflict of interest when they are asked to review an article and are encouraged to decline if they perceive a potential conflict, in which case they will be excluded from the review process for that article.
Peer-reviewers can choose open-acknowledgement — a new metric for researcher value in their field – which will be included at the end of the manuscript.
If a reviewer does not opt in for open acknowledgement they will be automatically listed as Anonymous.
Become a reviewer
Reviewing microPublications is intended to be quick -– as short as 15 minutes depending on the article.
If you are interested in becoming a reviewer for microPublication Biology- fill out this google form with your contact details.
Questions? Contact us (email@example.com)