Articles submitted to the journal are reviewed by at least two reviewers, who will assess the quality of the paper and provide recommendations to the editor on whether the paper should be accepted, revised, or rejected.
Reviewers should:
-
Respond promptly to the review invitation based on the title and abstract.
-
Submit the review report within 12 days of accepting the invitation.
-
Suggest other reviewers if they decline the invitation.
-
Request an extension if additional time is required to provide a comprehensive report.
Potential Conflicts of Interest:
Reviewers should declare any potential conflicts of interest and notify the editor to withdraw from reviewing. Potential conflicts may include:
-
The reviewer being from the same institution as one of the authors.
-
Having an academic relationship with any of the authors.
-
The reviewer stands to gain or lose personally or professionally due to the paper’s publication.
Reviewers are encouraged to consult the ethical guidelines for peer reviewers set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE guidelines), which the journal follows.
Confidentiality:
The journal follows a double-blind peer review process. Reviewers must keep the paper’s content confidential, including the abstract, and must not reveal their identity to the authors, either in their comments or in the metadata of their reports.
Review Reports:
The review report should be written in the language of the paper. General guidelines for writing the review report include:
-
Reading the entire paper carefully, with particular attention to figures, tables, data, and methods.
-
Providing a critical review of the paper, addressing specific sections and core concepts.
-
Offering detailed feedback to help authors address raised points.
-
Reviewers should not recommend citing their own works or those of colleagues unless it is essential to improving the paper.
-
Reviewers must remain objective and provide constructive feedback that helps authors improve their work, avoiding offensive comments.
-
Reviewers are prohibited from using artificial intelligence tools or automated systems to draft or edit their reports. Reviewers are solely responsible for their review content.
Suggested Contents for Review Reports:
-
A brief summary (one paragraph) explaining the aim, main contributions, and strengths of the paper.
-
Highlighting any weaknesses, such as hypothesis testability, methodological flaws, missing controls, etc.
-
Specific comments on the scientific content that will help authors respond appropriately.
-
Feedback should focus on the scientific content rather than spelling, formatting, or language, which can be handled later by internal journal specialists.
General Questions for Guiding the Review of Research Papers:
Novelty: Is the research question original and well-defined? Does it provide new insights into current knowledge?
Scope: Does the work align with the journal’s scope?
Significance: Are the results interpreted correctly? Are the conclusions supported by the results?
Scientific Integrity: Is the study designed correctly? Were the analyses performed using appropriate technical standards? Are the data strong enough to draw conclusions?
Overall Importance:Does
the paper contribute valuable knowledge? Does it address a significant research question?
Clarity and Structure: Is the paper clear, relevant to the field, and well-organized?
References: Are the references recent and relevant? Are there too many self-citations?
Figures/Tables/Diagrams: Are they appropriate and well-presented? Do they accurately display data?
Data Interpretation: Is the data interpreted appropriately?
Conclusions: Are the conclusions consistent with the presented evidence?
General Questions for Reviewing Review Articles:
-
Is the review comprehensive, clear, and relevant to the field?
-
Are the conclusions and data supported by the references?
Reviewers’ overall recommendations will be considered for evaluating the article’s progression.
General Recommendation for Next Steps:
Acceptance without Changes: The paper can be accepted without modifications.
Acceptance with Minor Revisions: The paper can be accepted after minor revisions based on reviewer comments (authors are given ten days for minor revisions).
Re-evaluation after Major Revisions: Major revisions are required for acceptance. Authors should address all comments point-by-point or justify any non-implemented changes. Authors are given 15 days for major revisions.
Rejection: If the paper has major flaws or lacks original contribution, it may be rejected without a chance for resubmission.
Your recommendation will only be visible to the journal’s editors, not the authors. All review decisions must be justified.
