HOME HELP FEEDBACK ARCHIVE SUBSCRIPTIONS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

Information for Reviewers

Peer reviewers must login to our online Manuscript Tracking System to enter their peer review. Starting on September 1st, 2008, Haematologica has adopted Bench>Press™, a web-based manuscript submission and tracking system created by Stanford University's HighWire Press. Since Bench>Press™ is adopted by several biomedical journals, reviewers may already have an account and simply need to sign in and fill out a profile page. Otherwise, they will need to create new account. They should log in here and proceed by checking for an account or registering a new account.

Haematologica/The Hematology Journal follows World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals. The WAME recommendations concerning Peer Review are reported below.

Peer Review

Peer review is fundamental to the scientific publication process and the dissemination of sound science. Peer reviewers are experts chosen by editors to provide written assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of written research, with the aim of improving the reporting of research and identifying the most appropriate and highest quality material for the journal.

Peer reviewers should be experts in the scientific topic addressed in the articles they review, and should be selected for their objectivity and scientific knowledge. Individuals who have a major competing interest in the subject of the article (e.g. those working for a company whose product was tested, its competitors, those with special political or ideological agendas, etc.) should not act as peer reviewers.

Reviews will be expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive. The desired major elements of a high-quality review should be as follows:

• The reviewer should have identified and commented on major strengths and weaknesses of study design and methodology
• The reviewer should comment accurately and constructively upon the quality of the author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations.
• The reviewer should comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study.
• The reviewer should comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of low standards of scientific conduct.
• The reviewer should provide the author with useful suggestions for improvement of the manuscript.
• The reviewer's comments to the author should be constructive and professional
• The review should provide the editor the proper context and perspective to make a decision on acceptance (and/or revision) of the manuscript.

The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication; reviewers must treat it as confidential. It should not be retained or copied. Also, reviewers must not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor. Reviewers and editors must not make any personal or professional use of the data, arguments, or interpretations (other than those directly involved in its peer review) prior to publication unless they have the authors' specific permission or are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the article.

If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should notify the editor in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties unless officially notified by the journal that they may do so.