Reviewer Guideline

Role and Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers are responsible for analyzing manuscripts in their field of expertise by reading and evaluating them, then providing constructive advise and honest feedback to the author of the submitted paper. Peer reviewers analyze the article's merits and faults, as well as ways to improve the paper's strength and quality, and assess the manuscript's relevancy and authenticity.

  • Participate in the peer-review system to ensure that the scientific process is held to high standards.
  • Maintain the journal's integrity by identifying faulty research and assisting in the publication of high-quality articles.
  • Fulfill a sense of responsibility to the community and their field of study.
  • Increase their chances of joining an Editorial Board by establishing links with prominent colleagues and their linked journals.
  • It can help in the prevention of ethical violations by detecting plagiarism, research fraud, and other issues due to their lack of expertise with the topic area.
  • Reciprocate professional civility, as authors and reviewers are frequently interchangeable positions — as reviewers, researchers "give back" the same kindness they get as writers.

Review Process

When reviewing the article, please consider the following:

Abstract

  • Is it a summary?
  • Does it include key findings?
  • Is it an appropriate length?

Introduction

  • Is it effective, clear and well organized?
  • Does it introduce and put into perspective what follows?
  • Suggest changes in organization and point authors to appropriate citations.
  • Be specific - do not write “the authors have done a poor job.”

Methodology

  • Can a colleague reproduce the experiments and get the same outcomes?
  • Did the authors include proper references to previously published methodology?
  • Is the description of the new methodology accurate?
  • Could or should the authors have included supplementary material?

Results and Discussion

  • Suggest improvements in the way data is shown
  • Comment on general logic and justification of interpretations and conclusions
  • Comment on the number of figures, tables and schemes Write concisely and precisely which changes you recommend List separately suggested changes in style, grammar and other small changes
  • Suggest additional experiments or analyses
  • Make clear the need for changes/updates
  • Ask yourself whether the manuscript should be published at all

Conclusion

  • Comment on importance, validity and generality of conclusions
  • Request toning down of unjustified claims and generalizations
  • Request removal of redundancies and summaries
  • The abstract, not the conclusion, summarizes the study

References, Tables and Figures

  • Check accuracy, number and citation appropriateness
  • Comment on any footnotes Comment on figures, their quality and readability
  • Assess completeness of legends, headers and axis labels
  • Check presentation consistency Comment on the need for colour in figures

When submitting your recommendation, you can choose from the following options:

  • Outstanding
  • Sound
  • Sound with minor or moderate revisions
  • Unsound or fundamentally flawed