Reviewer Guidelines

Role of Reviewers

Peer reviewers support editors in evaluating the validity, originality, and clarity of submitted research. Your recommendations help ensure that published work is accurate, transparent, and ethically conducted.

If you feel unqualified for parts of a manuscript, note this in your confidential comments and focus on areas within your expertise.

Ethics & Conduct

• Follow COPE-aligned standards for integrity and fairness.
• Do not use information from the review for personal or competitive advantage.
• Report suspected misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data manipulation) to the editor.

What to Assess

• Originality & significance: Does the work advance the field?
• Methods & analysis: Are methods appropriate, reproducible, and well described?
• Data & availability: Are data robust and available per policy?
• Interpretation: Are conclusions supported by evidence?
• Ethics: Approvals/consents included where applicable.
• Presentation: Organization, clarity, citations, figures/tables.

How to Structure a Review

• Summary: One short paragraph summarizing the study's aims and main findings.
• Major comments: Substantive issues affecting validity, ethics, or interpretation.
• Minor comments: Specific edits to improve clarity, style, or formatting.
• Confidential notes to editor: Concerns not appropriate for authors.
• Recommendation: Accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.

Confidentiality

• Treat manuscripts and related materials as confidential.
• Do not share or discuss with others without editor permission.
• Maintain anonymity consistent with the journal's review model.

Timeliness

• Aim to submit reviews within 2–3 weeks unless otherwise agreed.
• Inform the editor promptly if delays arise or if you must decline.

Conflicts of Interest

• Declare potential conflicts (recent collaboration, same institution, financial interests).
• Recuse yourself if conflicts could bias your assessment.

Tone & Language

• Be constructive, specific, and respectful; avoid personal remarks.
• Focus comments on evidence and how authors can improve the work.

Quick Checklist

• Study summary and overall contribution
• Methodological soundness and statistics
• Ethics and approvals
• Data availability statement
• Clarity of figures/tables
• Major and minor actionable points
• Final recommendation

Tip: Use a local editor or word processor with • bullets to draft notes, then paste into the review form.

Handling Revisions

• Evaluate the authors' point-by-point response objectively.
• Check that requested changes are addressed and new claims are supported.

Reviewer Recognition

We value reviewer contributions. Where journal policies permit, we may provide certificates or optional acknowledgment (while respecting confidentiality). Reviewers may list activity on services that support verified review records.

Contact

Editorial Office — Reviewer Support
Email: [email protected]