Reviewer Guidelines

1. General Responsibilities

• Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript as confidential. Do not share or discuss it with others without explicit permission from the editorial team.
• Objectivity: Provide an unbiased, professional, and constructive review. Avoid personal criticism of the authors.
• Timeliness: Complete the review within the assigned deadline. If unable to do so, inform the editor promptly.
• Conflict of Interest: Disclose any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., financial, collaborative, or personal relationships with the authors or institutions) that could influence your review.

2. Review Process

• Initial Evaluation:
  • Assess the manuscript for relevance to the journal’s scope.
  • Ensure the manuscript adheres to the journal’s formatting and submission guidelines.
• Key Criteria for Evaluation:
  • Originality: Is the research novel and significant?
  • Scientific Rigor: Are the methods robust, repeatable, and appropriate for the study?
  • Clarity: Is the manuscript well-written, logical, and easy to follow?
  • Contribution: Does the study advance the field or provide valuable insights?
  • Ethical Compliance: Verify adherence to ethical guidelines for research and publication, such as human/animal study approvals and conflict-of-interest disclosures.

3. Components of the Review Report

• Summary:
  • Provide a brief overview of the manuscript, highlighting its main contributions.
• Strengths:
  • Identify the key strengths of the manuscript (e.g., originality, solid methodology, importance of findings).
• Weaknesses:
  • Point out significant shortcomings, such as:
    • Lack of novelty or relevance.
    • Methodological flaws.
    • Gaps in analysis or interpretation.
    • Poor writing or organization.
• Specific Comments:
  • Number the comments for clarity and divide them into:
    • Major Issues: Substantive concerns that must be addressed before acceptance (e.g., experimental design flaws or incomplete analysis).
    • Minor Issues: Minor revisions such as typos, unclear sentences, or formatting issues.
• Recommendation:
  • Choose from the following options:
    • Accept without changes.
    • Minor revisions required.
    • Major revisions required.
    • Reject.

4. Ethical Concerns

• Plagiarism: Flag any instances of suspected plagiarism or lack of proper citation.
• Duplicate Submission: Notify the editor if the manuscript appears to be submitted elsewhere or closely resembles other published work.
• Misconduct: Report any signs of data fabrication, falsification, or ethical violations.

5. Tone and Professionalism

• Use respectful, professional, and constructive language. Ensure feedback focuses on improving the manuscript and supporting the authors’ research efforts.

6. Additional Points

• Supplementary Material: Check if the supplementary data enhances the manuscript and is adequately documented.
• Figures and Tables: Evaluate whether figures, tables, and other visual elements are clear, necessary, and correctly formatted.
• References: Ensure citations are relevant, up-to-date, and sufficient.

7. Communicating with the Editor

• Share concerns or suggestions directly with the editor, especially if recommending rejection or identifying ethical issues.

8. Review Confidentiality

• Do not use unpublished data or insights for personal advantage.
• Ensure all comments intended for the authors are respectful, while any confidential remarks for the editor are constructive.