Peer Review Information
Selection of reviewers is the responsibility of the Editor, although the PhD scientists on staff make recommendations to the Editor from a database of individuals who have reviewed manuscripts previously. This database includes self-identified areas of expertise as well as information about the perceived usefulness and timeliness of past reviews. Individuals who consistently have provided tardy or unhelpful reviews are removed from the database. Every effort is made to avoid both real and apparent conflicts of interest with respect to research activities or collaborative or personal interactions. Reviewers are asked to with draw from considering any manuscript in which they identify a conflict that has escaped the attention of the Editor.
Information contained in manuscripts is considered confidential and should not be shared or distributed. If necessary, a reviewer can consult with others for an adequate evaluation of the research findings if all individuals involved maintain confidentiality, objectivity, and avoid conflict of interest. NCB is not responsible for acts and conduct by reviewers that are not in accordance with accepted professional standards. Reviewers are asked to be objective in their evaluations and to judge primarily the novelty and soundness of the information presented.
Although reviews are anonymous, all comments should be capable of withstanding public scrutiny. Except in very unusual circumstances, the identity of the reviewers and Editors involved in the review of any given manuscript is kept confidential.