Reviewer Guidelines


The Peer Reviewer's Responsibility is responsible for critically reading 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 Peer Reviewer to discuss the article's strengths and weaknesses, ways to improve the strength and quality of the work, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.

Before Reviewing

Please consider the following:

  • Does the article you are being asked to review match your expertise? If you receive a manuscript covering a topic that does not sufficiently match your area of expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Please feel free to recommend an alternate reviewer.
  • Do you have time to review the paper? Finished reviews of an article should be completed within two weeks. If you do not think you can complete the assessment within this time frame, please let the editor know and, if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer. If you have agreed to review a paper but will need no longer finish the work before the deadline, please contact the editor as soon as possible.
  • Are there any potential conflicts of interest? While conflicts of interest will not disqualify you from reviewing the manuscript, it is essential to disclose all interest conflicts to the editors before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interest, please do not hesitate to contact the receiving editorial office.

The Review 

When reviewing the article, please keep the following in mind:

  • Content Quality and Originality. Is the article sufficiently novelty and attractive to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the article adhere to the journal's standards? Is the research question an important one? To determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might help think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in? Is it in the top 25% of papers in this field? You might wish to do a quick literature search using Scopus tools to see if there are any reviews of the area. If the research has been covered previously, pass on references of those works to the editor.
  • Organization and Clarity. It Consists of: (1) Title: Does it clearly describe the article? (2) Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article? (3) Introduction: Does it tell what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the investigated problem? Normally, the introduction should summarize the relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors' findings are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es) and the general experimental design or method. (4) Method: 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? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article clarify what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements? (5) Results: This is where the author/s should explain what he/she discovered in the research. It should be laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section. (6) Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward? (7) Tables, Figures, Images: Are they appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand? (8) Scope: Is the article in line with the aims and scope of the journal?.
  • Recommendations. Reviewers’ recommendation should be either: (1) Accept (2) Requires minor corrections (3) Requires moderate revision (4) Requires major revision (5) Not suitable for the journal. Submit to another publication such as (suggest a journal) (5) Reject

Recommendation should be backed with constructive arguments and facts based on the content of the manuscript. Your recommendation regarding an article will be strongly considered when the editors make the final decision, and your thorough, honest feedback will be much appreciated.