Dear Reviewer: The purpose of peer review is to ensure 1) quality, checking that no mistakes in procedure or logic have been made; 2) that the results presented support the conclusion drawn; 3) that no errors in citations to previous work have been made; 4) that the work is original and significant. The reviewer should maintain confidentiality about the existence and substance of the manuscript. It is not appropriate to share the manuscript or to discuss it in detail with others or even to reveal the existence of the submission before publication. The reviewer should treat a manuscript being reviewed as he/she would want his/her own paper treated, i.e., provide a critique that is positive, critical yet objective, and balanced, contains no personally offensive comments, and is returned promptly. The reviewer should write reviews in a collegial, constructive manner. When specific criticisms are made, the reviewer should indicate precisely what the problems are and how they may be overcome. There is nothing more discouraging to a new investigator (or even to a more seasoned one) than to receive a sarcastic, destructive review. A reviewer must be knowledgeable about the topic and have a clear understanding of the historical context in which the work was done. A reviewer also has a responsibility to familiarize him/herself with all aspects of the manuscript unless directed by the editor to focus on a specific area. The reviewer also has the unpleasant responsibility of reporting suspected duplicate publication, fraud, plagiarism, or ethical concerns about the use of animals or humans in the research being reported. The reviewer should always avoid, or disclose, any conflicts of interest. The reviewer should decline to review a manuscript on a subject in which he/she is involved in a contentious dispute and does not feel that a fair review can be provided. Finally, it is important to remember that a reviewer is asked to provide an informed opinion about a manuscript. The decision whether the manuscript will be published is made solely by the editor.

1. Scientific quality of the work
   ▪  Are the methods appropriate and presented in sufficient detail to allow the results to be repeated?
   ▪  Are the data adequate to support the conclusions?
2. Presentations
   ▪  Writing: Is it clear, concise, and in good English?
   ▪  Title: Is it specific and does it reflect the content of the manuscript?
   ▪  Abstract: Is it brief and does it indicate the purpose of the work, what was done, what was found, and the significance?
   ▪ Figures: Are they justified? Are they sharp, with lettering proportionate to the size of the figure? Are there legends to explain the figures?
   ▪  Tables: Can they be simplified or condensed? Should any be omitted?
   ▪ Trade names, abbreviations, symbols: Are these misused?
3. Research violations
   ▪  If the research involved human subjects, were the research is performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki?
4. Rating
   ▪  Assign a rating on the reviewer form; rank the manuscript relative to other work in the same field.
5. Confidential comments
   ▪  Provide comments regarding the novelty and significance of the manuscript.
   ▪  Provide a recommendation about the manuscript's suitability for publication in the journal; these comments will not be returned to the author(s).
6. Comments for authors
   ▪  On the reviewer form, provide specific comments, preferably numbered, on the design, presentation of data, results, and discussion. DO NOT include recommendations for publication on the second page.
   ▪  Please be certain that your comments to the author(s) are consistent with your rating recommendation.
7. Privileged document
   ▪  This manuscript is a privileged communication; the data and findings are the exclusive property of the author(s) and should not be disclosed to others who might use this information in their research.
   ▪  The manuscript, illustrations, and tables should be destroyed upon completing the review or, if anticipating a revision, kept confidential until the review process is complete.
   ▪  If you have shared responsibility for the review of this manuscript with a colleague, please provide that person's name and institutional affiliation.