Guidelines for Reviewer

The reviewer is responsible for critically examining and evaluating a manuscript in their specialty field, and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their submission. It is appropriate for the reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, ways to improve the strength and quality of the work, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.

The identity of the reviewers should never be revealed to the authors at any time either during the process of review or after article publication too.

Reviewer's comments should support one of the below-mentioned acts:

  • Accept

  • Minor revision

  • Major revision

  • Reject

Unbiased Comments

The peer review comments provided by reviewers must be transparent, unbiased and should not involve personal or professional conflicts.

The Quality of article

The comments given by the reviewer must be relevant and support to increase the quality of the manuscript.

Timely decision

Reviewers must submit the review within the timelines provided.

First Read Contemplations

Try to keep in mind the following questions - they'll help you form your overall impression:

  • What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?

  • How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

  • Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?

  • Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?

  • If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?

Identifying Potential Major Flaws

  • Drawing a conclusion that is contradicted by the author's own statistical or qualitative evidence

  • The use of a discredited method

  • Ignoring a process that is known to have a strong influence on the area under study

  • Insufficient data

  • Statistically non-significant variations

  • Unclear data tables

  • Contradictory data that either are not self-consistent or disagree with the conclusions

  • Confirmatory data that adds little, if anything, to current understanding - unless strong arguments for such repetition are made

If you find a major flaws in the article, note your reasoning and clear supporting evidence.

Rejection after the First Reading

Even if you are coming to the opinion that an article has serious flaws in the first read, make sure you read the whole paper. This is very important because you may find some really positive aspects that can be communicated to the author. This could help them with future submissions.

A full read-through will also make sure that any initial concerns are indeed correct and fair. After all, you need the context of the whole paper before deciding to reject. If you still intend to recommend rejection give constructive feedback describing ways that they could improve the research. This helps developing researchers improve their work and explains to the editor why you felt the manuscript should not be published.

Second Read Observations

When reviewing the next stage, reviewer should keep the following in mind:

  • Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?

  • Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?

  • Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?

  • Is the paper an appropriate length?

  • Is the article novel and interesting?

  • Does the article meet the journal’s standards?

  • Does the research question significant?

  • Does the author conducted the controlled experiments, repeated experiments and repeated analysis?

  • Does the article identify the procedures followed?

  • If the methods are new, are they explained in detail?

  • Was the sampling appropriate?

  • Have the equipment and materials been adequately described?

  • Does the author collect the data accurately?

  • Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected?

  • Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research?

  • Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded?

  • Does the author make reference to statistical analyses, such as significance or goodness of fit?

  • Once described, they should evaluate the trends observed and explain the significance of the results to wider understanding. This can only be done by referencing published research

  • The outcome should be a critical analysis of the data collected

Discussion should always, at some point, gather all the information together into a single. Authors should describe and discuss the overall article formed. If there are gaps or inconsistencies in the section, they should address these and suggest ways future research might confirm the findings or take the research forward.

The conclusion section is usually not more than a few paragraphs and may be presented in a separate section. The conclusions should reflect upon the aims - whether they were achieved or not - and, just like the aims, should not be surprising. If the conclusions are not evidence-based, it's appropriate to ask for them to be re-written.

You will need to check referencing for accuracy, adequacy and balance

Reviewers are requested not to use any information of the assigned data.

Please mention the proper reasons to reject the article like what are the weak points and the areas to be improved further.

Any kind of conflicts can be resolved at the editorial office.