Reviewer’s criticisms, arguments, and suggestions concerning the paper will be most useful to the editor and to the author if they are carefully documented. Dogmatic, dismissive statements, particularly about the novelty of the work are to be avoided, and reviewers should substantiate their statements. Reviewers will be asked to suggest acceptability as noted on the specific review form. In comments intended for the author, Reviewers organize their review so that an introductory paragraph summarizes the major findings of the article and gives overall impression of the paper, and highlights the major shortcomings. This paragraph should be followed by specific, numbered comments, which, if appropriate, may be subdivided into major and minor points (As per review form attached).
Very few papers qualify for an immediate, unconditional acceptance. There are many reasons to reject a paper. In general, if there are serious flaws in experimental design, incorrect interpretation of data, extensive additional experiments required, or any organizational or English usage flaws that prevent critical review of the manuscript, then reviewers recommend that the manuscript be rejected.
If reviewers feel that the deficiencies can be corrected within a reasonable period of time, then they recommend modification (e.g., accept with revision; or re-review required, if the revisions are extensive).
Reviewers advise the editors of their recommendation for acceptance, modification, or rejection of the manuscript. Reviewer's recommendations are gratefully received by the editor; however, since editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, reviewers should not expect the editor to honor ever y recommendation. The final decision regarding modification, acceptance, or rejection of a manuscript rests solely with the editor.