For Reviewers

Expertise and dedication of reviewers are fundamental to the integrity of the scholarly record and the advancement of science.

Reviewer Qualifications

A qualified reviewer should possess:

  • A strong academic background and current knowledge in the specific subject area of the manuscript.
  • A record of research and publication in reputable, peer-reviewed journals.
  • A commitment to confidentiality, timeliness, and providing unbiased and constructive feedback.

Key Responsibilities

  • Maintaining confidentiality of the unpublished manuscript.
  • Declaring conflicts of interest honestly.
  • Providing a timely response. If an extension of the review period is required, notify the editorial office promptly.
  • Conducting a rigorous assessment and providing a courteous and professional report.
  • Avoiding manipulation of peer review, e.g., recommending irrelevant references.

Peer Review Workflow

  • You will receive an invitation email with the manuscript’s title and abstract.
  • You can accept or decline the invitation based on your expertise and availability.
  • If you accept the invitation, you will be given an account registered by In-house Editors, with which you can log in the journal system.
  • Logging in the journal system, downloading the manuscript, and conducting your review.
  • Submitting your confidential report and recommendation through the online system.
  • The Assigned Editor will collect all reports and send them to the Editor-in-Chief for a final decision.

Effective Review Report

Generally, a review report consists of two main parts: confidential comments to the editor and the comments to the authors.

  • Confidential comments to the Assigned Editor: Summarizing your overall impression of the manuscript; clearly state your recommendation; highlighting any major ethical concerns, such as suspected plagiarism, data manipulation, or unattributed use of others’ work; commenting on the potential significance and novelty of the work for the field.
  • Comments to the authors: Assessing the work in terms of originality and significance, structure, language, mythology, data interpretation, the quality of references (e.g., relevance, adequacy, and accuracy); suggesting how the articles should be revised to be publishable; listing more specific issues to be addressed.