IN VITRO AND IN VIVO DEPLETION OF C3 COMPLEMENT ACTIVITY BY A LECTIN FROM CUSCUTA EUROPEA

The reviewer should accept to review a manuscript when conflict of interest is absent. A confidence should be kept during the review process. Reviewers, in general, have one month for submitting their review. In case of major revisions, they may be asked for a second review of the revised manuscript. The specific term can be extended via the ScholarOne system after notifying the Editor-in-Chief. The reviewer can decline the review if not within his/her field of expertise.

The review process is blind: the reviewer is aware of the authors’ names but should not sign his/her review.

The reviewers are kindly requested to fill their detailed comments in the “Comments to Editor” and “Comments to the authors” fields in order to ensure high-quality guidelines for revision, along with a concise general comment on the paper, which evaluates the manuscript subject and states whether:

- The content is in line with the scope of the journal, presents new and original data and supports the study goal.

- The introduction is adequate and cited literature sources correspond to study subject.

- The material and methods are appropriate and ethical principles for handling animals are met.

- The statistical methods of analysis are appropriate.

- The way of data presentation and number of tables and/or figures are adequate.

- The interpretations and conclusions are in line with presented results.

- The language and grammar quality of the text are adequate (reviewers are not required to edit language and grammar).

- The reference list is adequate.

- AI tools have not been used by authors for generation of incorrect text or content, generation of data or submission using a series of prompts, plagiarism or inappropriate attribution to prior sources, generated images that are presented as unique or novel research images or fabricated references is not allowed.
Reviewers should not require from authors to include specific sources for citations, especially publications of reviewers themselves. They should be coherent and consistent in attributing the comments and polite when giving them.

Additional materials in support of the work of reviewers including a detailed Reviewer Guide and training videos, are available at https://support.silverchair.com/s/scholarone-manuscripts/reviewers

Revised by May 2026