Manuscript review checklist for referees Title:
Sent Date:
Due Date for Review: Adequate Needs
revision
TITLE
Clearly describes the article Abstract
Reflects the content of the article
INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale for study (need and significance) 2. Summarizes relevant research to provide context,
and explains other authors' findings
3. Objective of the study
METHODS
1. The design is suitable for answering the question
2. The sampling is appropriate
3. Data Collection Procedures
4. Measurements have been described
5. Data Analysis (Description of Statistical Evaluation) C. RESULTS
1. Detail in narrative of the findings
2. Descriptive quality of figures and tables (if relevant)
3. Clearly laid out and in a logical sequence
4. The analysis has been conducted appropriately DISCUSSION
1. Findings compared and contrasted with relevant literature
2. The results support or contradict previous theories
3. Limitations of the study
4. Clinical implications of the study
5. Future directions of the study
CONCLUSIONS
1. Drawn logically
REFERENCES
1. Compliance with journal format (Vancouver style)
2. The minimal number of references should be 20 and 85% of them should be recent (published during the last 10 years, with the majority during the last 5 years)
3. Abbreviate journal names according to the Index Medicus system RECOMMENDATION
1. Not appropriate for Universa Medicina
2. Accept as it is
3. Accept after minor revisions
4. Accept after major revisions
5. Reject
please give specific reasons for your decision
Please make explicit here the basis of the evaluation comments and final recommendation. Please try to comment on specific issues that the author(s) can address directly. If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the author(s)