Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewer Guidelines
1) Before You Accept or Decline the Invitation
Expertise fit: Does the manuscript match your area of expertise? Accept only if you can provide a high-quality review.
Conflict of interest: Do you have any personal, professional, academic, or financial conflicts? Disclose to the editor (and decline if impartiality may be affected).
Time and deadline: Reviewing may require substantial effort. Confirm you can meet the journal’s deadline.
Need guidance: If you are new to reviewing, consult reputable peer-review training resources before proceeding.
Respond quickly: Please accept or decline as soon as possible. Delays slow the editorial process.
If declining: Suggest alternative qualified reviewers (name, affiliation, and email if possible).
2) Confidentiality and Responsible Handling of Materials
All manuscripts and associated files are confidential.
Do not share the manuscript, data, figures, or review details with anyone without editorial permission.
Do not use any unpublished ideas or results for personal advantage.
Maintain confidentiality even after the review is completed.
3) Accessing the Manuscript and Submitting Your Review
Use the link provided in the invitation email to access the submission system.
If you cannot access files or experience technical issues, contact the journal/section manager immediately.
4) How to Evaluate the Manuscript
4.1 First Screening (Quick Check)
Start by identifying major issues early (you may spot-check sections first):
Title/Abstract: Do they reflect the study accurately?
Overall structure: Is the manuscript readable, complete, and logically organized?
4.2 Methodology (Major Focus)
For experimental, analytical, or field studies, evaluate the Methods section carefully.
Major flaws (must be flagged):
Unsound or inappropriate methodology.
Use of discredited methods.
Missing key processes known to influence outcomes in the reported research area.
Conclusions drawn in contradiction to the reported statistical or qualitative evidence.
Additional checks:
For analytical/time-dependent studies: verify sampling design and adequacy of reporting.
For qualitative studies: ensure systematic analysis is described and supported by sufficient evidence (e.g., relevant quotes or clearly documented coding/analysis steps), not only narrative claims.
4.3 Research Data, Tables, Figures, and Visualizations
After confirming methodological robustness, examine all data presentations:
Figures/tables/images for clarity, correctness, and consistency with the text.
Adequacy of data points and appropriateness of statistical analysis.
Whether reported differences are meaningful and statistically supported.
Quality of data presentation (clear labels, units, readable tables).
Any dataset links, identifiers, or accession numbers (if included) for validity and relevance.
Major data-related flaws include:
Insufficient data points.
Statistically non-significant results presented as significant.
Unclear, misleading, or incomplete tables/figures.
4.4 Ethical Considerations
If the study includes human participants, patient data, animals, or sensitive data, check for:
Ethical approval by the relevant institution/committee (when required).
Appropriate consent and compliance with institutional/national policies.
Adequate documentation of ethical statements.
If ethics are unclear or missing, flag this as a major concern.
4.5 Literature and References
Are references relevant, sufficient, and reasonably up to date?
Are key related works cited?
Are citations consistent and appropriately formatted?
4.6 Originality, Significance, and Contribution
Is the work original and novel?
Does it contribute meaningfully to the field?
Are objectives clear and justified?
5) Structuring Your Review Report
Your review supports the editor’s decision and helps authors improve the manuscript.
Please ensure your comments are:
Courteous, professional, and constructive.
Free from personal remarks and do not include your identity in author-visible comments.
Well-supported: explain why something is a problem and how it can be improved.
Clear about whether a point is your professional opinion or supported by evidence/data.
Recommended review format:
- A) Summary (2–5 lines): Briefly describe the manuscript and your overall impression.
- B) Major Comments (numbered): Issues that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered.
- C) Minor Comments (numbered): Typos, language polishing, small clarifications, formatting.
- D) Confidential Comments to the Editor (optional): Concerns not intended for authors (e.g., suspected plagiarism, ethics doubts).
6) Recommendation Categories
Select one recommendation and justify it clearly:
Accept without revision
Minor revision
Major revision
Reject (provide reasoning)
If recommending revision, indicate whether you are willing to review the revised version.
7) Final Decision
The Editor makes the final decision based on reviewers’ reports and editorial judgment. The editor may request additional reviews or revisions before deciding.
8) After You Submit Your Review
Continue to treat the manuscript and any linked files as confidential.
Do not distribute or discuss the manuscript or your review without editorial approval.
Reviewer Checklist (Quick)
☐ Scope and relevance to the journal
☐ Originality and contribution
☐ Clear objectives and research question
☐ Methods sound and sufficiently described
☐ Results valid and supported by data
☐ Statistics/analysis appropriate
☐ Tables/figures clear and accurate
☐ Conclusions justified
☐ Ethics approval/consent (if applicable)
☐ References adequate and appropriate
☐ Language and structure acceptable
