Tanita Bathroom Scale Review

To lessen the likelihood of problems during the peer review of an article, authors are strongly encouraged to send an Outline of the proposed article to the Editor (BEFORE starting to write a review article. The Outline should include a tentative table of contents, which is best presented in telegraphic style rather than in full sentences; a good table of contents has 100 to 300 words. Authors should state the scope of the intended article, the boundaries of intended coverage, and novel aspects, pointing out areas on which they intend to provide a new synthesis of information. Authors should list previously published review articles on the same topic, and explain in what ways the new manuscript will be superior. If the authors have previously written review articles or chapters on the same topic, they need to indicate how the new manuscript will differ from their previous reviews. Abbreviated curricula vitae of each co-author should accompany the proposal; the curricula vitae should be limited to original publications of the authors on the subject of the proposed manuscript. Authors should state the date they expect to submit the completed manuscript. Outlines are sent out for peer review to determine whether the proposed manuscript is likely to meet the requirements of the Journal.

A reader's best guide that a review article will be of high quality and worth reading is confidence in the journal's peer-review standards. All review articles received by AJRCCM undergo rigorous peer review and only articles satisfying the highest standards are published. In fact, some articles commissioned by the Editor are declined for publication. When an original research paper is peer-reviewed, the referee evaluates the novelty of the hypothesis, the rigor of the experimental design, the soundness of the methodology, the approach to data analysis, and the plausibility of the findings. The focus differs when a review article is peer-reviewed. Here, the referee is concerned about the importance and relevancy of the overall subject matter, the comprehensiveness of the author's coverage, the emphasis given to individual studies, the legitimacy of the analyses, the new insights and ideas being offered, the ability to synthesize and integrate disparate observations, and the author's ability to communicate in a cogent and lucid manner.

When reviewers are assessing a review article for AJRCCM, they are requested to