Tento web používá soubory cookies. Dalším procházením webu vyjadřujete souhlas s naším používáním souborů cookies. Více informacíSouhlasím
X

Reviewers assess mainly:

1) Technical requirements

  • an original work with statistically processed data, a case study, literature research, systematic review etc.
  • adequate in terms of content and length
  • structured in accordance with the rules, with individual parts appropriately arranged
  • compliant with CONSORT or PRISMA rules in the case of systematic reviews
  • compliant with rules regarding privacy protection of research subjects
  • respects rules regarding potential conflicts of interest of its authors
  • respects rights of humans and animals involved in the research

 

2) Content requirements

  • the aim is defined and followed continually in the text
  • the abstract is correct, including its structure
  • the introduction is sufficient and corresponds to the article topic
  • the part of the paper dealing with methodology and materials is sufficient and appropriately supplemented with figures, tables, etc.
  • the results are correctly arranged and supplemented with charts and tables; the statistical data processing is appropriate and the data can be considered valid
  • an appropriate discussion is included taking into account sufficient literature related to the topic
  • references (bibliography) are correct and the rules for quotation specified in the instructions for authors have been followed

The peer-review process results in a list from each reviewer of imperfections that must be corrected (if possible) prior to publication of the article. Reviewers also give their opinion on whether the article should be published (appropriate without revisions; appropriate with authors’ or editors’ revisions; or inappropriate). The reviewers’ conclusions are very important for the editors when deciding whether to publish the article.

PARTNERS

© Czech Orthodontic society 2021