Instructions to reviewers
| Ver en español |
ChileanJAR Electronic Edition System allows to send observations to the editorial office from your Reviewer Home Page. In your Reviewer Home Page you will also find a corresponding revision certificate for each revised manuscript.
In order to not delay the edition process, please send your response before deadline (2 weeks).
ChileanJAR recognizes and values the opinion of reviewers as being decisive in determining the necessary corrections that the author(s) should consider for the final acceptance of a manuscript. Manuscript revision is an anonymous process; reviewers receive a copy of the manuscript without name(s) of the author(s).
Revision requires impartial and critical evaluation of the validity of the manuscript based on current scientific methodology. Reviewers should reject manuscripts of questionable scientific quality. Inadequately written manuscripts should also be rejected, that is, those without a hypothesis, unsatisfactory description of objectives, insufficient explanation of methods, or conclusions not supported by the results. The manuscript should be coherent, clear, precise, and concise, as well as grammatically correct.
Items that should be evaluated by a reviewer are:
Title should be clear and suitable.
Abstract should be representative and well written. It should include the five most important elements of the manuscript: an introductory sentence stating the problem, objectives, materials and methods, relevant results, and conclusions.
Key words should be relevant and indicative of the topic with a maximum of six words.
Introduction should contain specific background information and justification of the topic; it should be clear, organized, and supported by appropriate references. Most of the references should be current (10 years or less).
The objectives and hypothesis should be clearly established at the end of the Introduction.
Materials and Methods should be clearly and concisely described and organized.
The treatments applied for each experiment or group of experiments should be clearly explained along with the experimental design used, general or environmental conditions, evaluated variables, and applied statistical analyses. Materials and Methods used should be consistent with the proposed objectives and hypothesis.
Results and Discussion can be separate or in the same section. Discussion should include the interpretation of the results and compare the most relevant results with current references. Results should be consistent with the proposed objectives and methods.
Tables and Figures should include data in a readable and comprehensible format and with no need to refer to the text.
Conclusions should be in a separate section and related to the objective in accordance with the results. They should not include speculations or deductions not derived from results.
Literature Cited should be in accordance with the topic and mainly include current scientific journals.
Add email@example.com to your contact list to receive properly automatic e-mails from the system.