Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers play an essential role in the academic publishing process. We rely on the expertise, objectivity, and integrity of peer reviewers to ensure the quality, validity, and originality of the content we publish. Please read these detailed guidelines carefully before accepting or submitting a review for any of our journals.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review aims to validate scholarly work, improve manuscript quality, and help editors make informed decisions. Your feedback should be constructive, respectful, and focused on enhancing the manuscript.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

• Provide objective, honest, and constructive feedback within the deadline.
• Assess the originality, scientific validity, and relevance of the submission.
• Ensure your comments are clear, professional, and helpful to both authors and editors.
• Report any ethical concerns or conflicts of interest to the editorial team.

3. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

• Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.
• Reviewers must not use unpublished material disclosed in the submission for their own research or personal advantage.
• Do not contact the authors or discuss the manuscript with others unless specifically authorized.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess submissions on the following aspects:

• Originality: Is the manuscript novel and does it offer new insights?
• Scientific Soundness: Are the methods appropriate and reproducible?
• Data and Analysis: Are results supported by appropriate analysis?
• Structure and Clarity: Is the manuscript logically organized and clearly written?
• Literature Review: Is the manuscript well-grounded in existing research?
• Figures and Tables: Are visuals relevant, clear, and appropriately referenced?

5. Structure of the Review Report

Your review should typically include the following sections:

• Summary: A brief overview of the manuscript’s main contributions and your overall impression.
• Major Issues: Any substantial concerns about methods, data interpretation, ethical compliance, or conclusions.
• Minor Issues: Grammar, formatting, missing references, or minor clarifications.
• Recommendation: One of the following — Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

6. Timelines

We ask reviewers to complete their evaluations within 14–21 days. If you need more time, or if you're unable to complete the review, please inform the editorial office as early as possible.

7. Double-Blind Peer Review Policy

Our journals use a double-blind peer review process. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. Please avoid including any personal identifiers in your comments or suggestions.

8. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should disclose any personal or professional conflict that may bias their judgment (e.g., financial ties, competitive relationship, or close collaboration with authors).

9. Ethical Irregularities

• If you suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, dual submission, or other misconduct, notify the editor immediately.
• All concerns will be investigated confidentially and appropriately.

10. Reviewer Recognition

• We acknowledge reviewer contributions annually on our journal website.
• Certificates of Review are provided upon request.
• Outstanding reviewers may be considered for editorial board positions or special review assignments.

11. Review Tools and Resources

We encourage reviewers to make use of available tools for grammar checking, plagiarism screening (if permitted), and referencing. For guidance, you can refer to resources from COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and Publons.

12. Contact and Support

For questions or support during the review process, please contact us at editors@journalsonline.org. We appreciate your time, expertise, and contribution to maintaining the integrity and quality of scholarly publishing.