Reviewer guidelines

Reviewer guidelines

1. Confidentiality

• Confidentiality: The manuscript you are reviewing is confidential. Do not share or discuss the content with anyone outside the review process, including the authors. If you need to consult a colleague, seek permission from the editor first.
• Anonymity: The journal follows a double-blind review process. Do not reveal your identity to the authors or discuss the manuscript with them directly.

2. Conflict of Interest

• Disclosure: If you have any potential conflict of interest (e.g., personal, financial, or professional relationships with the authors or the research topic), notify the editor immediately. If you feel unable to provide an impartial review, decline the invitation to review.

3. Timeliness

• Review Deadline: Complete your review within the specified time frame. If you are unable to meet the deadline, inform the editor as soon as possible so that alternative arrangements can be made.
• Extensions: If you require additional time, contact the editorial office to request an extension, explaining the reason for the delay.

4. Evaluation Criteria

When reviewing a manuscript, consider the following criteria:

• Originality and Contribution:
• Is the research original and does it provide a significant contribution to the field?
• Does the study address a novel problem or offer a new perspective on an existing issue?
• Relevance to Journal Scope:
• Is the topic within the scope of the journal?
• Does the manuscript align with the journal's objectives and target audience?
• Methodology:
• Are the research methods appropriate, sound, and well-described?
• Has the study been conducted rigorously and ethically?
• Is the data analysis robust and adequately supported by the findings?
• Clarity and Organization:
• Is the manuscript well-organized and clearly written?
• Are the objectives, methods, results, and conclusions presented logically?
• Are the figures, tables, and supplementary materials helpful and correctly formatted?
• Significance of Results:
• Are the results meaningful and do they support the conclusions drawn?
• Does the study provide practical or theoretical implications for the field?
• Are any limitations of the study acknowledged and addressed?
• Literature Review:
• Is the literature review comprehensive and up-to-date?
• Does the manuscript properly reference relevant work and place the study within the context of the existing body of research?
• Ethical Considerations:
• Does the study adhere to ethical guidelines, including proper handling of human or animal subjects (if applicable)?
• Are conflicts of interest disclosed by the authors?

5. Review Report

Your review report should be constructive and respectful, regardless of your recommendation. Consider the following structure:

• Summary: Provide a brief summary of the manuscript, highlighting its key points and contributions.
• Major Comments: Identify any significant issues that need to be addressed, such as methodological flaws, unclear sections, or missing information. Be specific in your feedback, and suggest improvements where possible.
• Minor Comments: Note minor errors, such as grammatical mistakes, unclear sentences, or formatting issues. These can often be corrected during revision.
• Recommendation: Choose from the following options and provide a justification for your recommendation:
• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with minimal or no revisions.
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript is generally sound but requires minor changes.
• Major Revisions: The manuscript has potential but requires substantial revisions before it can be reconsidered.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards and is not suitable for publication.

6. Ethical Issues

• Plagiarism: If you suspect that the manuscript contains plagiarized content or has been previously published elsewhere, notify the editor immediately.
• Misconduct: If you identify any ethical concerns, such as falsified data or improper use of human/animal subjects, report these issues to the editor.

7. Reviewing Revisions

• Revised Manuscripts: If the authors submit a revised version of the manuscript, you may be asked to review it again. Evaluate whether the authors have adequately addressed your comments and whether the manuscript has improved.
• Response to Reviewers: Consider the authors' responses to your comments when evaluating the revised manuscript. Assess whether the changes made are sufficient.

8. Communication with the Editor

• Concerns: If you encounter any issues during the review process or have concerns about the manuscript, communicate them directly with the editor.
• Suggestions: If you believe that the manuscript could benefit from additional expertise, you may suggest other reviewers who could provide valuable insights.

9. Continuous Improvement

• Feedback: After completing your review, you may receive feedback from the editor on your review report. This feedback is intended to help you improve your reviewing skills.
• Stay Updated: Keep abreast of the latest developments in your field to provide informed and up-to-date reviews.

10. Recognition and Acknowledgment

Contribution: Your contributions as a reviewer are vital to maintaining the quality of the journal. You may receive recognition, such as acknowledgment in the journal or eligibility for reviewer rewards or certificates.