Reviewers Guidelines

• General Rules and Structure
• Publication Recommendation
• Narrative Evaluation
• Points to consider in your review include
• Decline to review

The purpose of peer review is to improve the quality of the reviewed manuscripts and the final published materials. Accurate peer review is a time-consuming but essential task to ensure the quality of academic journals. The editors of PSH's official journal, the Journal of Hematology and Stem Cell Research (JHSCR) are very grateful for your time and effort in the review process. Journal of Haematology and Stem Cell Research (JHSCR) operates a double-blind review process in which the identities of the authors are hidden from the reviewers, and identities of the reviewers are hidden from the authors.
General Rules and Structure
Please note that the manuscript you have been asked to review is a privileged (confidential) communication.
• Make your review as complete and detailed as possible. Express your views clearly and provide supporting arguments and references when necessary. Including the manuscript's advantages and disadvantages, suitability, originality, and clear views on the importance of the field.
Publication Recommendation
• In making your publication recommendation, please consider these guidelines adapted from the JHSCR Publication
• Express your views clearly with supporting arguments and references as necessary. Include clear opinions about the strengths, weaknesses and relevance of the manuscript, its originality and its importance to the field. Specific comments that cite line numbers are most helpful.
• A manuscript must be accurate, and the conclusions and generalizations must follow from the data.
• A manuscript must be more than free of major drawback/ scientific fault — it must be or may be an important contribution to the literature.
• A manuscript must be appropriate for the journal to which it is submitted
• To provide sufficiently high quality feedback so that authors whose manuscripts are rejected are encouraged to continue submitting their best work to the journal, and authors whose work is accepted receive valuable ideas for their next project.
Narrative Evaluation
• A brief statement of your essential understanding of the study and its findings, thereby, authors are reassured that you have read the manuscript in detail.
• The strengths of the manuscript should be described in some detail (additional comments can be entered into review proforma)
• It is important for authors to know what you think they have done well, together with your comments about what should be changed. This paragraph might also be the best place to point out problems throughout the manuscript, for example, biased use of language. • It is important that reviews provide enough information that the Editors and authors have enough to understand the evaluation.
Points to consider in your review include: (which includes in the peer review proforma) • Is the topic of the manuscript appropriate for the Journal? Is the information of significant interest to the broad readership of the Journal?
• Do the title, abstract, key words, introduction, and conclusions accurately and consistently reflect the major point(s) of the paper?
• Is the writing concise, easy to follow, and interesting, without repetition?
• Is the aim clearly stated? • Are the methods appropriate, scientifically sound, current, and described clearly enough that the work could be repeated by someone else?
• Is the research ethical and have the appropriate approvals/consent been obtained?
• Are appropriate statistical analyses used? Are they sufficiently justified and explained? Are statements of significance justified?
• When results are stated in the text of the paper, are they supported by data? Can you verify them easily by examining tables and figures? Are any of the results counterintuitive?
• Are all tables and figures necessary, clearly labelled, well designed, and readily interpretable? Is information in the tables and figures redundant? Is it repeated in the text?
• Are the conclusions supported by the data presented? • Are the references cited the most appropriate to support the manuscript? Are citations provided for all assertions of fact not supported by the data in this paper? Are any key citations missing?
• Consider the length of the manuscript, relative to the content. Should any portions of the paper should be expanded, condensed, combined, or deleted? (Please be specific in your advice, and don't simply advise overall shortening by x%).
• Does the manuscript comply with the Instructions for Authors?
Decline to review
• You should decline to review manuscripts in which you have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.