Manuscripts submitted for publication in Bentham Science journals are subjected to double blind peer-review. The identities of both the reviewer and author are kept undisclosed to each other, ensuring anonymity and maintaining confidentiality throughout the entire review procedure. The anonymity of reviewers ensures an objective and unbiased assessment of the manuscript by the reviewers. Publishers recommend that reviewers review COPE Ethical Guidelines to provide quality unbiased review reports. Please read the complete guidelines at the Committee on Publication Ethics available at https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers.
Reviewers are advised to consider the following important aspects of a manuscript when conducting the review.
1. Reporting of Original Results:
The results reported in the manuscript must be original and authentic work of the authors. They should be
devoid of any plagiarism and the material should not have been published earlier. Studies which report
some reproduced results, for example a new clinical trial, may also be considered for publication.
2. Experiments and Analyses:
Experiments and other analyses should meet the recognized technical standards and must be described
systematically. The research presented in a manuscript should facilitate in reaching accurate
conclusions from the statistics. Methods and experiments as well as reagents should be documented in
detail.
3. Interpretation of Results:
Authors should present and interpret the results and conclusions in an appropriate and comprehensive
manner, clearly explaining the results and outcomes of their study. Incomplete interpretation of results
may result in rejection of the manuscript.
4. Language of Composition:
The manuscript should be written in English in a clear, direct and active style, free from grammatical
errors and other linguistic inconsistencies. All pages should be numbered sequentially, facilitating the
reviewing and editing of the manuscript. Authors should seek professional assistance for correction of
grammatical, scientific and typographical errors before submission of the revised version of the article
for publication. Professional editing services may also be sought by the team available at Bentham Science at an
extra charge.
5. Experiments Involving Humans and Animals:
The research must meet the highest applicable international standards of the ethics of experimentation
and research integrity. A brief description on ethical guidelines is given in the ‘Instructions for
Authors’ of every journal published by Bentham Science.
6. Reporting Guidelines (e.g. CONSORT, MIAME, STROBE, EQUATOR) and Community Standards for Data:
The manuscript should adhere to suitable reporting guidelines (e.g. CONSORT, MIAME, STROBE, EQUATOR) and
community standards for data availability. Bentham Science seeks to disseminate research and
therefore stipulates that the public deposition of data is as per the followed standards (for example
gene sequences, microarray expression data, and structural studies). Other similar standards that may be
applicable should also be followed.
IMPORTANT POINTS TO CONSIDER:
Reviewers are expected to provide advice on the following points in their review reports:
Is the manuscript written comprehensively enough to be understandable? If not, how could it be
improved?
Have adequate proofs been provided for the declarations?
Have the authors addressed the previous findings fairly?
Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology to reproduce the experiments?
Bentham Science encourages authors to publish detailed protocols as supporting
information online. Do any particular methods used in the manuscript warrant such a protocol?
Use of Generative AI and AI-assisted Technologies in the Peer Review Process:
Since the use of AI technology has increased, it has brought its own challenges regarding the originality of the review of submitted manuscripts. Bentham Science has been striving to improve its policies accordingly. With time, we will continue to update our policies to support our reviewers, authors, and editors.
The quality of the peer review of submitted articles has been our top priority. The reviewers are advised not to use AI technologies or any other related assisting resources to generate review reports that could compromise the integrity and confidentiality of the reports.
PRIVACY STATEMENT:
The peer-review of a manuscript is a confidential process. Reviewers should keep the whole process
completely confidential. They should consult the EiC/Senior Editor and obtain permission before
consulting another colleague for help in the peer-review of the submitted manuscript.
Reviewers should not disclose any information whatsoever to anyone before publication of the manuscript.
REVIEWING PROCESS FLOW CHART:
