Guidelines to improve the quality and clarity of the submitted manuscripts
1. Is the title sufficiently informative and reflecting the work described? (in vivo, in vitro, phantom only, etc)
2. Is the abstract sufficiently informative and reflecting the work described? Does it include the following information in this order?
a) objective(s) of the work,
b) motivation with clearly explained novelty aspect(s),
c) one or two sentences summarizing the methods,
d) one or two sentences summarizing the results,
e) one or two sentences of key (quantified) conclusions
f) recommended number of words (150 -‐250)
3. Do the abstract and introduction start with clear motivation and explanation of the novelty of the work?
"The purpose of this work was... Or “This study focuses on…” or alike
4. Does the manuscript have the following structure: Objective/Background, Motivation/Novelty, Methods, Results, Key and Quantified Conclusions?
5. Does the Introduction cite sufficient references (including seminal works and current most relevant references to the subject and results) and -- briefly-- in a sentence or two – explain their key conclusions?
6. Does the Introduction conclude with a brief outline of the work?
7. Are the choices of all experimental and theoretical assumptions and parameters explained and justified?
8. Are physical interpretations for all formulas included?
Are implications of the assumptions immediately pointed out?
9. Is presentation lucid?
Is English satisfactory or should the manuscript be edited by a professional native speaker?
10. Are adjectives quantified?
11. Do textbook references include a specific page or pages?
12. Are all relevant dimensions shown in the figures?