Guidelines for Reviewers

The editorial board is grateful to the reviewers of the journal for their contributions in upholding the high scientific standards of the journal. Peer reviewing is essential for the critical analysis of  the manuscript and is an invaluable help to the editors during the decision making process.

The reviewers should bear in mind that  the submitted manuscripts  contain confidential information; they should not be discussed or referred to before publication. The reviewers should be objective and constructive in their comments to the authors. The aim is to improve the manuscript and help the authors to better present their findings. The reviewer should decline  to perform the review if a conflict of interest exists.

The review should start with General Comments and follow the structure of the manuscript with comments for each section including Abstract, Level of Evidence, Key words, Introduction, Materials & Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions, References, Tables and Figures.

General Comments

Please include the following in the general comments section of your review
• Describe the study and its main conclusions in two sentences
• Is the subject of the paper within the scope of the journal ?
• Is the research question valid and of interest ?
• Does the paper add to what is known on the subject ?
• Are the conclusions supported by the data ?
• Does the paper have scientific merit to be published in GRJ ?
• Comment of the quality of English language and point out if language editing is needed, you do not need to correct grammar.

Guidance on reviewing different article types

Please consult the guidelines below for reviewing different types of articles

Papers reporting on biologics such as PRP and mesenchymal stem cells are advised to follow the MIBO (Minimum Information for studies reporting Biologics) statement for standardization and comparability of their techniques. https://www.mibo-statement.org/

Randomized controlled trials should be reviewed by consulting the  CONSORT 2010 checklist for study design and reporting (http://www.consort-statement.org)

Cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies should be reviewed by consulting the STROBE Checklist for study design and reporting (https://www.strobe-statement.org/fileadmin/Strobe/uploads/checklists/STROBE_checklist_v4_combined.pdf

Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses should be reviewed by consulting the PRISMA checklist http://www.prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/Default.aspx

Case reports should be reviewed by consulting the CARE checklist https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/care/

Studies on Diagnostic Accuracy should be reviewed by consulting the STARD 2015 Checklist https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/stard/