Reviewers Guide:

IJPNI appreciates your contributions.  You will receive a copy of files that are submitted by a corresponding author, the review process is designed as a blind-process where list of authors,their affiliation and addresses or contact information is not shared with you.  Abstracts will be of two types.


(1) Original Research Reports; and (2) Comprehensive Review Summary


Abstract review guidelines for "Original Research Reports" type

Abstract needs to be in four parts, written using a total of 400 words or less. 


  1. Aims and Introduction
  2. Materials and Methods
  3. Results and Discussion
  4. Conclusions



in addition, each abstract must provide a maximum of six Keywords


Evaluators/Reviewers are invited to consider each of the following items and provide a justifiable score per question in return table.


  • A score of 5 is reasonable if the introduction ends by stating the research aims, and it provides a reasonably succinct set of background information in less than four sentences. A reviewer ought to be able to formulate a good impression of the explicit aims of the study, otherwise, the introduction needs improvement and a lesser score (than 4) is reasonable.
  • A score of 5 is reasonable if the Materials and Methods section describes in detail but briefly all major steps of the experimental process. Commonly, the parts of this section address (a)  Controls for the experiment; (b) Processing of the samples during collection, analysis, and storage; and (c) Data manipulation that may include specific and appropriate statistical analysis to obtain valid information to build the conclusion of the study. A score of less than 4 is reasonable if any of the three elements is missing.  
A score of less than 3 is given if a revision is mandated because (1) experimental method is not appropriate, (2) a description of a part (a-c) is vague, and 3) Data manipulation and analysis needs further description, data is not sufficient, and/or they may not be reliable. Overall a reviewer shall observe that samples are used to make sure the observed trends are not due to chance and statistical analyses support methods as a replicable approach by other researchers.
  • A score of 5 is reasonable if the Results and Discussion section provide succinct information about findings/discoveries or final outcomes of the experiment. The description ought to be simple, make reference to statistical analyses allow readers to independently evaluate the reported trends using data presentation text, and the results may be compared to other published research. 

A score of less than 3 is given if (1) trends are not clearly supported by data and statistical analyses, (2) the reported outcome(s) are not supported by the analysis of the data collected, and (3) all the experimental information does not coagulate as a single whole story. If two fo these three are observed, request for revision is justified (score of less than 2).

  • A score of 5 is reasonable if the Conclusions in less than two paragraphs reflects upon the aims and are completed supported by results and observed trends. A lesser score is reasonable if either/or clarity, relevance, supporting reference material is missing. Authors may receive revision request if a conclusion receives a score of less than two.

Abstract review guidelines for "Comprehensive Review Summary" type


  • A score of 25 is reasonable if reviewers feel confident that the abstract is:
    • summarizes what the review process is and how it aims to: 
      • establish new finds, and why they are important
      • relate the existing literature and current knowledge in a comprehensive but unique picture
      • address challenges and need for any further investigation
    • of the high quality and present a completeness
  • A lesser score is reasonable if any of the above is not true or:
    • there any major flaws
    • similar work has already been published and authors did not acknowledge it

Review of the whole manuscript:

IJPNI expects all reviewers to:

  • agree that review of material is a confidential process as it is defined by law
  • return any manuscript that is not related to their field of expertise
  • request check for plagiarism if deemed necessary
  • evaluate if the work is:
    • original
    • clearly described
      • aim of the study
      • justification of applied methods
      • statistical and other utility used for data analysis
      • results and if any bias
  • assess if the conclusions are:
    • supported by obtained data in result
    • compared to past reports listed in references
    • free of any unrelated and new ideas
    • concise 
  • determine value of recommendations if available

Reviewers are encouraged to be positive in their responses, and make recommendation using a supporting language not one that may be construed as harsh ineffective objection or rejection of work.