• BFY Proceedings
• Volumes
• About the Proceedings
  • General Information
  • Editors
  • Frequently Asked Questions
• Authors
  • Manuscript Preparation
  • Manuscript Submission
  • Publication Rights
  • Review Process
  • Brief Checklist for Authors
• Peer Reviewers
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Questions to Ponder
  • Ethical Guidelines

Evaluation Criteria

The BFY Proceedings are intended to be inclusive welcoming not just significant or final results, but also preliminary research results and discussions of works-in-progress. A peer reviewer can only evaluate what the authors chose to include in the paper. Thus, each paper should be evaluated on the merit of what is presented versus what should/could have been presented.

Papers submitted to the BFY Proceedings are reviewed based on the following six criteria:

1. Interest/Value to the Advanced Laboratory community;
2. Content Novelty;
3. Strength of Research;
4. Conclusions;
5. Organization of Ideas; and
6. Grammar and Formatting.

Criterion Description

Interest/Value to the Advanced Laboratory community

While the BFY Proceedings are meant to be inclusive, welcoming works in progress, well written papers that are not of interest to the Advanced Laboratory community are not appropriate for the BFY Proceedings. Papers that you feel the Advanced Laboratory community would find thought-provoking or that make a contribution to the existing body of research should receive marks of 3 - 5 in this category.

Content Novelty

New research should score highly in this category, as should work that is not necessarily entirely novel, but a worthwhile confirmation or extension of previous work.

Strength of Research

Here you should judge the appropriateness of the research methods and how effectively the researchers put those methods into practice. Look for techniques you feel could/should have been used but were not. Not all reviewers come to the review process with the same skill sets but all should have at least some familiarity with the types of research that may be conducted.

Papers that do not contain new research or data, but rather present ideas for the community's consideration can still be judged, but with slightly different considerations. Questions to consider in this situation are:

• Are the ideas informed by peer-reviewed literature?
• Are the arguments presented in a logical arrangement?
• Are the paper's premises valid with respect to the paper's domain?

Conclusions

Interpretation of results should be a major part of this section as well as implications of the results.

Organization of Ideas

Sometimes a paper's content is novel and the research is sound, but the presentation is weak. If a paper is weak in the presentation (but can be improved in a minimal re-write), indicate that in this category.

Grammar and Formatting

All authors are expected to follow the BFY Proceedings Style Guide. Rate the papers based on how well the author(s) followed these guidelines, edited their own work, and followed accepted norms for writing a peer reviewed, scientific journal paper. Minor issues of formatting should be pointed out, but should not lead to a negative review. Failure to follow the formatting requirements in the initial submission should not cause any manuscript to be rejected. However, papers that are not properly formatted at final submission will be excluded from the Proceedings.

Publication Recommendation Levels

As a reviewer, you will ultimately need to tackle the following questions regarding whether the paper you have evaluated is appropriate for publication in its present form.

• Do you recommend that the paper be accepted for publication in its current form?
• If you recommend rejecting or revision of the paper, please prepare a detailed, CONSTRUCTIVE analysis for the author. The questions posed in the Questions to Ponder section may help focus and/or provide talking points for your analysis.
• If you recommend rejecting the paper, is the study sufficiently promising to encourage the authors to continue revising the paper for possible submission elsewhere?
• If you recommend rejecting the paper, what specific work is needed to make it acceptable for possible submission elsewhere?

To help you decide which level of recommendation to choose, we have outlined a few thoughts for your consideration.

Publish

The paper makes a substantial contribution to the Advanced Laboratory community. The authors provide a strong rationale for the importance of the problem or issue under examination. The methodology is appropriate. The study is fundamentally sound. By "substantial contribution" we mean:

1. the findings of the paper provide insight into an existing advanced laboratory problem or practice;
2. the paper provides new ways of examining how to study problems and questions in the field, or
3. the paper helps us think about critical issues in the field.

The paper meets the formatting requirements for the BFY Proceedings. It may need to have some minor re-wording to clarify the meaning of specific passages. It does not need to have any additional data or discussion added to strengthen the work presented. It may benefit from a thorough re-read to catch additional spelling and grammar errors but none of these significantly affect the message of the piece.

Offer this recommendation if you have given the paper good (3) to high (4, 5) marks in all categories.

Publish with MINOR Modifications

The paper makes a substantial contribution to the Advanced Laboratory community, but one or more aspects of the paper need minor clarification. The methodology is appropriate for addressing the questions or issue. The study is fundamentally sound. Even with the need for improvement, there is no doubt that the paper warrants publication in the BFY Proceedings. The amount of clarification necessary would NOT require a re-review of the paper.

Improvements may include the following:

1. The data analysis section needs further clarification to show how the findings follow from the data.
2. The organization of the paper could be improved by rearranging the sections.
3. Minor clarification of the methodology might be necessary.

The paper meets the formatting requirements for the BFY Proceedings. It contains several passages that require re-wording to clarify their meaning. It does not need to have any additional data but may need additional discussion added to strengthen the work presented.

A major consideration when selecting this level of recommendation is the length of time and amount of changes required by the authors.

• How much would further work improve the paper?
• How difficult would this be?
• Would it take a long time?

If your answers to these questions indicate that the paper would need too much work, would be too difficult, and would take a long time to do, then this paper should be rejected as the paper would require a re-review before publishing.

This is the appropriate level of recommendation if you have given the paper good (3) to high (4, 5) marks in the most important categories (a - c), but you feel it would definitely benefit from a thorough re-read to catch additional spelling and grammar errors as some of these affect the message of the piece.

Do Not Publish

Typically, this categorization would be reserved specifically for papers in which the reviewers have found a significant number of weaknesses across several categories. However, due to the short turnaround time for the BFY Proceedings, this is not the only reason to recommend that a paper NOT be accepted for publication. The following are also examples of issues that would suggest that a paper not be accepted for publication at this time.

• Papers that reviewers find make a substantial contribution to the Advanced Laboratory community, but one or more aspects of the paper need improvement. For instance, the data analysis section needs further clarification to show how the findings follow from the data by the addition of new data. New data can mean data already collected but not provided in this version of the paper, previously unanalyzed data, or the collection of additional data. One common omission in submitted papers is that authors fail to elucidate what the major contributions of the paper are to the field. These papers would require a re-evaluation before publication.
• The paper has the potential to make a substantial contribution to the Advanced Laboratory community, but as written the paper has too many weaknesses to allow you to make a decision. For instance, the authors may not have provided an appropriate rationale for the study or the methodology is poorly explained. The paper requires a substantive revision and then a re-evaluation for publication.
• The paper has limited potential to make a substantial contribution to the Advanced Laboratory community because there are too many weaknesses in the paper, one or more weaknesses that cannot be improved, or the paper does not provide new insights to field. Rejections generally fall into two groups; papers with particular weaknesses in the study or presentation, and papers where the study may be strong but the work does not substantially advance the field.

You should consider any paper that you gave low (1, 2) marks in one or more of the important categories (a - c) at this level of recommendation.