Reviewers Guidelines
Decisions about publishing submitted manuscripts involve both editorial evaluation and peer review. When a manuscript is submitted, at least two members of the editorial team review it to decide if it should go for external review. The main goal at this stage is to give authors a quick decision if a manuscript clearly doesn’t meet the necessary criteria for further consideration.
Editorials and Letters may sometimes be accepted without external review. However, most manuscripts are either rejected at this initial stage or sent for peer review. Papers that don’t meet the journal’s basic standards, such as those lacking novelty or relevance, may be rejected to avoid unnecessary delays for authors who want to submit their work elsewhere. Some manuscripts might be returned to authors for revisions before editors decide whether to review them. Authors can typically expect a decision within one to two weeks of submission.
Manuscripts that move on to peer review are assessed by a group of international experts. Each paper undergoes double-blind peer review with two or more independent reviewers, supervised by the section editor and the Editor-in-Chief. While the journal works hard to keep authors’ identities confidential during the review process, authors are responsible for removing any identifying details, such as references to previous publications. If a manuscript contains information that reveals author identity, it will be reviewed in a single-blind manner, where reviewers remain anonymous but authors do not.
The journal aims to complete the peer review process within four weeks of the decision to review, although there may be occasional delays. Authors are encouraged to wait up to six weeks from the submission date before contacting the editorial office. The Editor-in-Chief has the final say on acceptance or rejection.
Role of Reviewers
Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the quality and integrity of the journal, and as part of the double-blind process, they must keep their identities confidential.
Reviewers should decline an invitation to review if the manuscript is outside their field of expertise, if they cannot complete the review on time, or if they have conflicts of interest. All manuscripts must be treated confidentially, and consultation with others is only allowed with prior editorial approval. Reviewers must not pass manuscripts to colleagues for evaluation; if they cannot review, they should decline the invitation directly.
As protectors of academic quality, reviewers are expected to evaluate the originality, rigor, and significance of the work submitted. If they find out that a manuscript is under review by another publication, they should inform the editor. While evaluation criteria may vary based on the work, reviewers are generally asked to consider the following:
- Compliance with the journal’s structure and author guidelines
- Clarity of purpose and objectives
- Coherence and flow of arguments and transitions
- Quality of the introduction, conclusion, and recommendations
- Adequacy and accuracy of references
- Language quality (grammar, spelling, punctuation)
- Originality and absence of plagiarism
- Relevance and suitability of the article to the journal’s scope
Reviewer feedback plays a key role in the editorial process. Their recommendations, whether to accept, revise, or reject, significantly influence the final editorial decision. The journal urges reviewers to provide detailed, objective, and constructive comments that help improve the scholarly quality of published articles.
Peer Review Responsibility for Reviewers
Reviewers should treat papers as confidential and keep their content private.
Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts if they have conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions involved.
Reviewers should inform the Editor-in-Chief of any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript in question and any other published work they know about.
Reviewers may point out relevant published works that the authors have not cited.
Reviewers should express their opinions clearly, backing them up with arguments in 500 to 1000 words.
Reviews should be conducted fairly, with no personal criticism of the author. Knowledge of the author(s) should not influence their comments or decisions.
Editorial Responsibilities
- Compliance with the journal’s structure and author guidelines
- Editors (Deputy Editors or Editor-in-Chief) hold full responsibility and authority to accept or reject an article.
- Editors should not change their decisions after they submit one (especially after rejecting or accepting) unless there's a serious reason.
- Editors should avoid conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members.
- Editors should not reject papers based on assumptions; they must have proof of misconduct.
- Editors should act if they suspect any misconduct in a paper, whether it's published or not, and strive to resolve the issue.
- Editors should only accept a paper when they are reasonably confident of its quality and adherence to ethical standards.
- Editors should keep reviewers' identities anonymous and refrain from reversing previous editorial decisions without a valid reason.
- Editors should base their decisions on the paper's importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the publication.
- Editors should understand the funding sources for the research and publish errata pages or make corrections when needed. They should ensure the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
- Editors should consider the needs of both authors and readers when improving the publication and take responsibility for the contents and overall quality.
Confidentiality
Confidentiality is vital in the publication process, and editors must keep submitted manuscripts private, sharing information only with those involved in evaluation, review, and publication. They must not disclose information about submitted manuscripts to anyone else or discuss the content publicly before acceptance and publication. Editors commit to protecting the confidentiality of authors and peer reviewers, including their names and feedback, in line with ICMJE policy. They also promise to verify the accuracy of information in their journal articles and follow high journalistic standards.
Editors cannot reveal peer review comments without permission from the author and reviewer, except in cases where the journal requires open peer review. In those situations, permission is granted by submitting the review to the journal. If the reviewer’s identity needs to remain anonymous, it will not be revealed to the author or anyone else without written consent from the reviewer.
Confidentiality may only be broken if there are allegations of dishonesty or fraud, but editors must inform the author or reviewer beforehand and keep confidentiality otherwise.
Editors will not use confidential information for personal gain or allow others to do so. They will take necessary precautions to prevent inappropriate use of confidential information. In cases where peer reviewers breach confidentiality, editors will contact the involved parties and resolve the matter until it is satisfactorily addressed.
Peer Review and Timeliness
Editors also commit to ensuring that reviewer comments are properly assessed and understood, considering any conflicts of interest reported by the reviewer.
Articles written by an editorial team member will undergo independent peer review, and the editor will play no role in the peer-review process or publication decision for their own article.
Editors will work hard to ensure the prompt processing of manuscripts.
If the journal does not plan to publish a manuscript, editors will strive to reject it as soon as possible, allowing authors to submit their work to another journal.
