Guidelines for Reviewers

Introduction
Purpose of the Review
Mechanics of the Review Process
Track changes
Copyright

Introduction

Bioscience Education welcomes articles on a range of subjects within the context of teaching and learning in the Biosciences. These articles may treat their subjects generally or in detail; they may include practical, scientific, theoretical, or historical topics and how these might be dealt with in a teaching situation. They must have both scientific and pedagogical validity and must conform to the Instructions to Authors.

We appreciate that reviewing papers takes time and we are very grateful to you for agreeing to act as a reviewer for the e-journal.

Purpose of the Review

The primary purpose is to determine whether the article constitutes a contribution to the literature of learning and teaching within the field of bioscience. Consider the paper from the point of view of both a specialist and a generalist. The paper should have some meaning for a reader who is not a specialist in the field being discussed. Note that authors are instructed to submit only original material that has not been published previously and that the article should not have been submitted simultaneously to another journal.

Clarity is important. You should judge whether the article is clearly organised, well presented and correctly punctuated. If not, please recommend appropriate changes which might make the article acceptable for publication. Texts should be judged on the basis of relevance to the aims and scope of the journal, originality, rigor of thought and the use of straightforward and precise prose. Texts should be as concise as possible.

Specific points should be raised when necessary. You should ask questions concerning a pedagogical approach. You should also question a technical or scientific procedure if something is omitted, misleading, or unclear. Judge whether an analysis or procedure is appropriate, well done, and ethical. Errors of all kinds should be pointed out. Key statements, unless well established, should be supported by literature references and/or other evidence. Bear in mind that there may be multiple approaches that can be taken to designing a piece of research and that, although you may have designed the study differently, changes should only be recommended if there are actual errors or clearly inappropriate steps taken in the project.

Correct for style and errors in scientific terminology. The journal publishes neither footnotes nor endnotes. If you review a paper with footnotes, instruct the author to study the guidelines regarding the policy and procedures relating to this issue. Similarly, we expect the use of metric rather than English measurements and the use of SI units wherever possible. Articles must conform to our e-journal style before they are considered for final publication. If you find errors in specialised pedagogical or scientific terminology, please indicate them. Graphics and Tables should be considered in terms of relevance and clarity and the same data sets should not normally be presented in both forms.

Mechanics of the review process

The EBM responsible for the paper will e-mail you an electronic version of the paper and a reviewers form.

1. Comments
Please type your general comments on the review summary form provided. In addition, please use the Track Changes option to add any comments and suggested amendments to the electronic version of the manuscript. Please e-mailed the completed form and ammended manuscript back to the EBM. These, along with the other review(s) will be collated by the EBM and passed to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief will then contact the author to consider any changes and amendments where appropriate. A copy of your comments will be sent anonymously to the author unless you wish your name to be included: the Editor-in-Chief prefers reviewers normally to be identified so that supportive interactions are facilitated. However, any comments that you wish to remain confidential can be added in the appropriate section on the review form. Equally any changes to the manuscript will be made anonymous.

2. Recommendation
Indicate on the comment sheet your recommendation:

• Accept the manuscript as it stands.

• Accept with Minor Revisions: The paper is almost ready for publication, requiring only simple revisions that could be accomplished within one month.

• Accept with Major Revisions: More extensive revisions are required (such as rethinking interpretations of the data, finding and incorporating missed references into the narrative, rethinking the structure and presentation of data tables, adding illustrations, etc.). This category of acceptance may be expected to require at least three months for revisions to be completed.

• Reject but may Resubmit: The topic and basic approach of the treatment or experiments are appropriate to the journal, but some of the work needs to be redone, or additional material/observations/analysis need to be incorporated. Note that "Reject may resubmit" does NOT mean that the paper is unsuitable for Biosicence Education, nor is it a negative response. It simply means that the requested revisions will probably require more than three months to complete. If you choose this option, emphasize in your comments that the author is, in fact, encouraged to resubmit the article.

• Reject: The paper is unsuitable for Biosicence Education (and resubmission is not encouraged). If you have ideas for a more appropriate journal, please feel free to mention them for the author's benefit.

3. Confidentiality
Please remember that this is a confidential process. If during the review process you ask advice or an opinion from a colleague, the authors should always remain anonymous and the discussions confidential.

4. Email return of review
Please email your review to the EBM by the date requested, and always as soon as possible. The marked-up electronic manuscript with the use of tracking changes should be returned with the reviewers form to the EBM responsible for the manuscript. If you find that you are unable to make the deadline, inform the EBM immediately. Our timetable is tight because we are intending to provide a prompt publication service with a turnaround time for accepted submissions of about one month. The EBM must make a recommendation which is passed to the Editor-in-Chief who makes the final decision and communicates this to the author by the promised date.

Please remember that a copy of most of your review (except your confidential comments to the Editor) goes to the author to provide guidance and support and the justification for your decision. Your comments are intended to be constructive, and both positive as well as negative comments can be important and appropriate. These should help the authors to realise that particular suggestions are not merely criticisms, but are intended to improve the quality of the article so that the end result is an improved professional publication. Insulting or mean-spirited comments cannot be passed on to authors. Framing comments in as constructive and professional a manner as possible will improve the author's ability to accept them and increase our chances of receiving a publishable revision.

Track changes feature: supporting notes and websites

Track changes is a way of recording changes made by different authors and also gives the opportunity to add pertient comments anywhere in the text. The following web sites provide useful support for the Track Changes feature that we expect Reviewers to use. There is also extensive online help within Microsoft Word itself.

• Microsoft Office 'how-to' guide

• Word Tracking Changes Guide: Drew University — a very clear exposition of its use for older versions of MS-Word

Note that the identity of the reviewers comments can be removed automatically.

Word 2007 — Change the author name for review comments

Word 2003 — See demonstration

Copyright

Copyright for Bioscience Education articles remains with the authors. Authors must ensure, however, that they have copyright, or have the appropriate copyright releases, for any 3rd party materials (e.g. images) that they use in their manuscript.