Reviewer Guidelines

Aim of peer review process

Peer review is a process to improve the quality of the material that is due to be eventually published in a scientific journal. Frontiers in Emergency Medicine appreciates gratefully the time and effort reviewers invest in this process.

Our journal policy dictates us to be ensured that peer review is definitely unbiased, fair and accurate. Decision to whether accept or decline a manuscript for publication depends on the novelty of the topic, its importance and originality, validity and reliability of the study and of course its relevance to the scope of the journal.

We use different academic sources to identify most qualified and dedicated reviewers. It should be emphasized that reviewers’ evaluations and comments play a major role in our decision to choose the best and most informative articles for publication.

FEM committedly conducts a double-blind review process in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are hidden from each other.

General notes

  • Reviews should be performed fairly, constructively and objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate and strongly discouraged. “The review should criticize the science, not the scientist”. Criticisms should be intended to help the author to improve his or her paper.
  • If there are any conflicts of interest (due to relationships or connections with any of the authors or mentioned institutions), you should decline to review the manuscript.
  • FEM expects all reviewers to respect the confidentiality of the manuscript. You should not discuss the content and idea of the manuscript with your colleagues or use its data in your own work.
  • If you guess another colleague would be more qualified than you to review the paper, please first discuss your request with the editor. Do not pass the paper to anyone else without prior permission.
  • To remain anonymous, make sure that you avoid using comments that might serve as clues to your identity.

Comments to the editor

Any possible conflicts of interest can be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief.

Comments to the author

All comments and criticism of the manuscript should only be placed in the “Comments to the Author”. They will be submitted to the associate editors and the editor-in-chief. Communication to the authors and reviewers will be kept on until the final decision has been made by the editor-in-chief.

Comments should be effective, productive, useful, constructive and designed to enhance the manuscript. Make your comments as clear, complete and detailed as possible. Express your viewpoints with supporting statements. Begin with the major contributions of the paper. Include the strengths of the work besides its weaknesses. Emphasize on its originality and relevance to the field. Mention both general and specific points, both major and minor concerns. Support your comments with specific evidence and necessary references.

Points to be considered in your review include:

  • Is the topic of the manuscript suitable for the Journal?
  • Do the title, abstract, key words, introduction, and conclusions consistently reflect the major ideas of the paper?
  • Is the English writing concise, interesting and fluent?
  • Are the primary endpoints clearly stated?
  • Are the methods and analysis scientifically appropriate and described clearly?
  • Are the ethical approval and patient informed consent been obtained?
  • Are the results relevant and supported by data? Can they be verified easily by looking at the tables and figures?
  • Are all tables and figures clearly labelled, well designed, and easily interpretable? Is the information in the tables and figures relevant to the main text?
  • Are the conclusions supported by the main outcomes presented?
  • Are the references correctly cited based on FEM Authors’ Guide?
  • Does the whole manuscript comply with the FEM Authors’ Guide?
  • Does this manuscript have a new idea to add to the existing literature?
  • Are there any possibilities that the data has been fabricated? Is there any plagiarism?
  • Have the authors declared all relevant competing interests