Information for referees

Ethical principles in peer-reviewing a manuscript Referee provides scientific expertise of the original manuscript, so that his/her actions should be impartial in nature and follow the principles listed below:

• A manuscript received for peer-review should be treated as a confidential document, which can not be transmitted for review or discussion of third parties who are not authorized by the editor/editorial board.
• A referee is obliged to give an objective and reasoned assessment of the study results in the manuscript. Personal criticism of the author is not acceptable.
• Unpublished data from manuscripts submitted for consideration should not be used for personal purposes of a referee.
• A referee who does not have, in his/her opinion, enough qualification/knowledge in the field of the manuscript or can not be objective, for example, in the case of a conflict of interest with the author or organization must inform the editor with a request to exclude him from the process of peer-reviewing this manuscript

Advice to Referees

The role played by referees in maintaining the standing of the MUPB is a crucial one. It is our intention to apply the acceptance criteria stringently and to act promptly and resolutely in making decisions to accept or reject manuscripts. The active and conscientious involvement of you as a referee is central to the success of the journals.

When reviewing this paper we appeal to you to write an incisive, well-justified report that considers the following points:

• Does the paper contain sufficient new physics that significantly advances the field to warrant publication in the MUPB? 
• Is the paper scientifically sound and not misleading? 
• Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work? 
• Is the paper well organized and clearly written in good scientific English? 
• Are the figures and tables (if any) clear and useful with suitable captions, or is there unnecessary duplication from previous publications? 
• Are the title and abstract informative, concise, and clear? 
• Does the content of the paper justify its length? Please be specific as to how and where the paper could be expanded or shortened. 
• Should all the material in the manuscript be included in the published article, or would some of the material (for example, long tables) be better suited as online Supplemental Material (SM). See Supplemental Material Instructions
• Is the section for which this is being considered (Review, Regular Article, or Comment) the right venue for this work?
•  Be aware that some sections have length limits. See Length Limits