Guide to Reviewing

Reviewer's Guidelines

A brief guide to reviewing

Purpose of Peer Review

Thank you for the effort and expertise that you contribute to reviewing, without which it would be impossible to maintain the high standards of peer-reviewed journals.

Peer review is a critical element of scholarly publication and one of the major cornerstones of the scientific process. Peer Review serves two key functions:

• Acts as a filter: Ensures research is properly verified before being published.
• Improves the quality of the research: Rigorous review by other experts helps to hone key points and correct inadvertent errors.

On Being Asked To Review

• Expertise: Only accept an invitation if you are competent to review the article.
• Time Commitment: Reviewing typically takes about 5 hours. Ensure you have sufficient time before the deadline.
• Conflicts of Interest: Disclose any potential conflicts to the editor, such as collaborations or departmental affiliations.

Conducting the Review

Reviews must be conducted confidentially, and the article should not be shared without editor approval. Do not contact the author directly.

When evaluating an article, consider:

• Originality: Is the research novel and important? Check if it falls within the top 25% of papers in the field.
• Structure: Are all key sections present — Title, Abstract, Introduction, Method, Results, Conclusion?
• Language: Poor grammar should be noted but not corrected; alert the editor if needed.
• Figures and Tables: Do they clearly represent the data? Are they consistent and accurate?
• Previous Research: Are important works properly cited and referenced?
• Ethical Issues: Identify plagiarism, fraud, or ethical violations related to animal/human research.

Key Elements to Evaluate

• Title: Clearly describes the article.
• Abstract: Summarizes the content accurately.
• Introduction: States the problem, hypothesis, and context clearly.
• Method: Well-detailed, reproducible, appropriate design.
• Results: Logical, clearly presented, and correctly analyzed.
• Conclusion/Discussion: Supported by the results and previous research.

Communicating Your Report to the Editor

After completing your review:

• Notify the editor if you may miss the deadline.
• Provide a short summary of the article at the beginning of your report.
• Ensure your comments are courteous, constructive, and anonymous.
• Clearly support your judgment and provide suggestions for improvement.

Recommendation Categories

• Reject: Poor quality or out of scope.
• Accept without revision.
• Accept with revision: Clearly specify major or minor changes needed.