Guidelines for reviewing manuscripts for the journal Paediatria Croatica

I.  Unpublished manuscripts are the property of the authors.  The information contained therein must not be used or shared.  If you show this manuscript to anyone while preparing your review, please state who and why in your Confidential Comments for the Editors.  Destroy the manuscript after reviewing.

II.  In the Confidential Comments to Editors ONLY, indicate whether the manuscript should be accepted, rejected, or potentially accepted after revisions are made.  Be as specific as possible in your Confidential Comments to the Editors, and include the rationale for your recommendation. Please indicate if any part of the paper should be elucidated in an editorial; the Editors would appreciate your suggestions of potential editorial writers (including yourself).

III.  In the Comments to Authors, write specific constructive criticisms which, if followed, would improve the manuscript to your satisfaction. Please number your comments to the authors in order to facilitate their response. *Do not give any indication of your recommendation regarding acceptance in the Comments to Authors.**  However, if you are not in favor of acceptance, be sure to tell the authors your specific objections.  Do comment on all of the following (if applicable):

  1. Originality/novelty/importance:  Does this observation address an important question that has not already been answered from the literature? Would this be an important addition to the literature?
  2. Are there any ethical issues regarding conflict of interest, informed consent, IRB approval, possible duplicate publication, etc.?  As required by The Journal, authors must upload in-press submissions and/or prior publications that have overlapping information with the submitted manuscript. Additional manuscripts and/or published articles are included after the current manuscript in the PDF. Please feel free to include comments regarding overlap in your review.
  3. Is this a randomized controlled trial?  If so, are the following elements included: (1) clinical trials registry and identification number; and the (2) CONSORT flowchart?
  4. Text presentation

1. Abstract:
- Does the Abstract accurately reflect the contents of the manuscript?
2. Introduction:
- Does it state the problem and study objectives clearly and adequately?
- Does it review the background adequately, yet succinctly?
3. Methods:
- Were the methods suitable?  Is the design sufficient to answer the question?
- Does the section contain enough detail?  Too much?
- Is the study group described adequately?
- Are the equipment and techniques described adequately?
4. Results:
- Are the data sufficient to answer the question?  Is there enough detail?  Too much
- Do all data presented relate to the main point?
- Is the statistical analysis adequate?
5. Discussion:
- Is the section too long?  Is there material that does not relate to the main point or overlaps with another section?
- Is previous work in the field reviewed adequately and fairly?
- Do all conclusions proceed logically from the statistical results?  Have the data been interpreted accurately and objectively?
- Do the conclusions answer the aims of the study?
- Are the limitations of the study discussed adequately?
6. Tables and Figures:
- Are there enough illustrations?  Too many?  Is there overlap with text?
- Are labels clear?  Are important features visible and well marked?
- Are legends understandable?
- Is the quality of the figures adequate for publication?
7. References:
- Are there more than necessary?  Do all references relate to the question?  Could individual studies be cited instead from review articles?
- Do they cover the current state of the art fairly?  Are any important references omitted?
- Are there misquotes or misinterpretations of references?

Please categorize the manuscript:
1. Original scientific paper
2. Review Paper
3. Scientific review paper
4. Professional paper
5. Case report

Table of reviewers who participated in the review process in 2021.

no. Name and Surname of reviewer employment institution
1. Marija Barišić Kutija Klinički bolnički centar Zagreb
2. Marija Škara Kolega Opća bolnica Zadar
3. Hrvoje Klobučar Specijalna bolnica za ortopediju i traumatologiju Akromion
4. Nenad Jakušić Klinika za dječje bolesti Zagreb
5. Jasminka Horvatić Klinički bolnički centar Zagreb
6. Tomislav Đapić Klinički bolnički centar Zagreb
7. Dubravka Negovetić Vranić Stomatološki fakultet Zagreb
8. Alma Konjhodžić Stomatološki fakultet Sarajevo, BiH
9. Željko Jovanović Fakultet zdravstvenih studija, Rijeka
10. Ana Katušić Edukacijsko-rehabilitacijski fakultet, Zagreb
11. Joško Markić Klinički bolnički centar Split
12. Ivan Pavić Klinika za dječje bolesti Zagreb
13. Milan Stanojević Poliklinika za dječje bolesti Sabol
14. Katja Vince Klinička bolnica Merkur
15. Nataša Ivančić-Jokić Fakultet dentalne medicine Rijeka
16. Bernarda Lozić KBC Split
17. Jadranka Sekelj-Fureš Klinika za dječje bolesti Zagreb
18. Silvije Šegulja Fakultet zdravstvenih studija, Rijeka
19. Oleg Jadrešin Klinika za dječje bolesti Zagreb
20. Tatjana Lesar Poliklinika Helena
21. Iva Hojsak Klinika za dječje bolesti Zagreb
22. Alenka Gagro Klinika za dječje bolesti Zagreb
23. Marijan Frković Klinički bolnički centar Zagreb
24. Aleksandra Munjiza KBC „Sestre milosrdnice“
25. Ana Bosak Veršić KBC Rijeka
26. Ana Tripalo Batoš Klinika za dječje bolesti Zagreb
27. Milivoj Jovančević Pedijatrijska ordinacija Milivoj Jovančević
28. Giovana Armano Pedijatrijska ordinacija Giovana Armano
29. Jelena Roganović KBC Rijeka
30. Izabela Kranjčec Klinika za dječje bolesti Zagreb
31. Kristina Lah Tomulić KBC Rijeka
32. Višnja Tokić Pivac Klinika za dječje bolesti Zagreb
33. Dubravko Furlan KBC Split
34. Anko Antabak KBC Split
35. Ljubica Odak Klinika za dječje bolesti Zagreb
36. Sanda Huljev Frković KBC Zagreb
37. Mijana Kero KBC Split
38. Goran Tešović Klinika za infektivne bolesti, Zagreb