Purpose and rewards of peer review Columban Journal Of Life Sciences, strives to publish superb studies in all areas. Peer reviewers’ opinions of manuscripts are invaluable in assisting the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors in making their decisions. In addition to helping assess the value of a manuscript for the scientific literature and Columban Journal Of Life Sciences in particular, reviewers help authors to improve their manuscripts by recommending areas for the author to address (either for Columban Journal Of Life Sciences or an alternate journal if a manuscript is ultimately rejected by Columban Journal Of Life Sciences). In return for reviewing, you’ll keep up with the field and gain understanding that will improve the quality of your own studies and how you report them. You will provide a service to the readers by improving the published articles wherever they are published. In appreciation of your service to the journal, your name will be included in a list we publish twice each year of reviewers who have reviewed for us during the past 6 months. We are always looking for competent, enthusiastic reviewers. If you are interested in reviewing, contact us at [email protected] and we will add your name to our reviewer database. Please include a series of keywords on topics in which you have expertise to help us determine appropriate papers for you to review. The review process requires strict confidentiality. Please follow these guidelines: Columban Journal Of Life Sciences is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication. To avoid delay in publication of important scientific work, we request that reviewers return their comments within the time indicated at invitation. If any unanticipated difficulties arise that may prevent you from submitting the review on time, contact the editorial office immediately. Reviewer Conflicts of Interest Publication ethics require that a reviewer reveal any potential conflicts of interest – financial or personal – that may bias their review with respect to the authors or the content. Disclosure is most appropriate at the time of acceptance of a review assignment. A reviewer should decline invitations to peer review papers authored by close colleagues unless they are sure they can remain absolutely objective. To ensure fairness and unbiased feedback, please let us know if you have a conflict of interest in any of the following ways: We do not consider it a conflict of interest if you have reviewed the paper under consideration for another journal (this only confirms that you are probably well qualified). However, please let us know, in Confidential Comments to the Editor, whether the authors made the appropriate changes in the manuscript in response to your initial review. Declining an Invitation to Review Please let us know why you are declining. We welcome your suggestion of another colleague who might be able to review the manuscript. If you will be unavailable to accept review invitations for a specific period of time, please let us know; we will create a note in our database that will alert staff to your time frame of unavailability. A Good Peer Review: Assigning priority and choosing superb papers A good peer review includes dependable information based on thoughtful assessment of the manuscript and relevant literature; objectivity is critical, with an appropriate degree of detail to communicate positive and negative aspects of a manuscript. Timeliness is imperative. Reviewers will want to consider the following aspects when reviewing a manuscript: As you review the manuscript, keep in mind that the most helpful reviews state the reasons why the study is superb, why the paper is fatally flawed, or why you prioritize it somewhere along the acceptance-rejection spectrum. Substantiate your statements. Detailed comments will help the editors make a decision on a paper and will also help the authors improve it. Comments for the authors should first include a general paragraph stating: