Guidelines for Reviewers
The Responsibility of the Peer Reviewer
The peer reviewer is responsible for critically reading and evaluating a manuscript in their fields of specialty, and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about the submissions. It is appropriate for a Peer Reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, the ways to improve its strength and the quality, and to evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.
Please consider the following:
If you receive a manuscript that covers a topic that does not sufficiently match your area of expertise, please notify the editorial office as soon as possible. Please feel free to recommend alternate reviewer.
Articles should be reviewed within two weeks of accepting the review request. If you think you are not able to complete the review within this defined time, please let the editorial office know and if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer. If you have agreed to review a paper but will no longer be able to finish the work before the deadline, please inform the editorial office as soon as possible.
- Conflicts of interests
It is important to disclose all conflicts of interest to the editors before reviewing any referred article.
When reviewing the article, please keep the following in mind:
- Content Quality and Originality,
Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to publish?
Does it add to the existing knowledge?
Does the article adhere to the journal's standards?
Is the research question an important one?
In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might be helpful to think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in?
Is it in the top 25% of papers in this field?
If the research has been covered previously, introduce those works/references to the editor.
Organization and Clarity
- Scope: Is the article in line with the aims and scope of the journal?
- Title: Does it clearly describe the article?
- Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
- Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant researches from the literature to provide context, and explain what other authors' findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es) and the general experimental design or method.
- Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded? Has the author been precise in describing measurements?
- Results: This is where the authors should explain in words what they discovered in their research. It should be clearly laid out and in logical sequences. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.
- Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
- Tables, Figures, Images: Are they appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand?
- All submissions are confidential and please do not discuss any aspect of the submissions with a third party.
- If you would like to discuss the article with a colleague, please ask the editor first.
- Please do not contact the author directly.
- Ethical Issues:
Plagiarism: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the editor know immediately while citing the previous copied work in as much detail as possible.
Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor.
Other ethical concerns: For medical research, has confidentiality been maintained? Has there been a violation of the accepted norms in the ethical treatment of animal or human subjects? If so, then these should also be reported to the editor.