Guideline For Reviewers
What is the responsibility of a peer reviewer?
Peer reviewers are responsible for assessing the quality of manuscripts that will be accepted into the journal. Their main task is to critically evaluate manuscripts based on their specialty as well as provide constructive feedback to the authors. Additionally, peer reviewers are also expected to assess the relevance, originality, strength, and weaknesses of the manuscript.
What are the procedures that need to be taken?
- Reviewers will receive an email requesting to review a given manuscript. A link will be embedded in this email, allowing you to access information: Deadline and Abstract.
- Before accepting to review a manuscript, reviewers should ensure that:
- The manuscript is within their area of expertise.
- There is no conflicting interest (e.g., being an author of the manuscript, funds the research, etc). They can commit to providing a critical review of the manuscript within the given time.
- Reviewers must then notify the submission editor as to whether he/she will undertake the review. Click “Will do the review” if you agree to review the manuscript in the given time or “Unable to do review” to refer the manuscript to another reviewer.
- Once you agree to do the review, consult the reviewer guideline below.
- Click file names to download and review the full manuscript and declare whether you have any competing interest with regard to the research
- Reviewers assess the manuscript and complete the review form within the given time.
- Reviewers must select a recommendation for the manuscript (Accepted/ Accepted with Revision/ Resubmit/ Rejected) and submit the review to complete the review process.
What must I assess as a peer reviewer?
Title: Does it clearly describe the article?
Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
Manuscript originality & Contribution to the field
Is the manuscript novel and interesting? Does the research significantly contribute to the development of knowledge in the field? Does the article adhere to the journal's standards? Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Is the manuscript highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research 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.
Clarity and significance of the research
Does the author clearly justify the importance of the research in the background? Is the aim/ study objective important?
Accuracy of the research method
Have the authors written all essential information needed in a method section (e.g., study design, variables, instruments, subjects, analytic approach, etc)? Was the sampling appropriate? Was enough information given to enable study replication? Was the study design appropriate for answering the research question/objective?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? 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 author/s should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct?
Depth of discussion
Have the authors clearly written the strength and limitation of their research? Have the authors conducted an in-depth analysis of how their study relates to the context of other existing studies?
Accuracy of conclusion
Did the author/s draw an appropriate conclusion based on the analysis? Does the conclusion relate to the study objective?
Adequate number of primary, relevant, and current literature
Reviewers should assess the number of primary literature that is relevant and recent.
Points to consider
Reviewers are asked to provide detailed, constructive comments that will help the editors make a decision regarding publication and how the authors could improve their manuscript. A key issue is whether the work has serious methodological flaws that should preclude its publication, or whether additional experiments or data are required to support the conclusions. Where possible, reviewers should provide references to substantiate their comments.
What ethical regulations must I abide to?
Reviewers should only accept to review a manuscript that they can confidently say they will be able to critically review and return in a timely manner.
Confidentiality
Reviewers must ensure that all review processes are kept confidential. Any details of the manuscript (e.g., content, review comments) should remain confidential during and after the review process.
Plagiarism
Reviewers must not use any information or data obtained from the reviewed manuscript for their own personal use. Should reviewers find that the reviewed manuscript substantially copy another work, reviewers are expected to immediately let the editor know.
Objectiveness
Peer reviewers are expected to uphold an objective and honest view during the review process. They should not be influenced by:
- The origin of the manuscript
- The religious, political, or cultural viewpoint of the author
- Gender, race, ethnicity, or citizenry of the author.
Timeliness
Reviewers should only accept to review a manuscript that they can confidently say they will be able to critically review and return in a timely manner.
Conflict of Interest
Before accepting to review a given manuscript, reviewers should declare their conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists.
