Guidelines for Reviewers
The main objective of these guidelines is to ensure that reviewers understand their responsibilities and can provide constructive critiques that assist authors in their scientific research, regardless of the outcome (Acceptance/Rejection/Revision) of the peer-review process. The guidelines consist of 10 key points, each accompanied by a detailed description. We hope you find them valuable.
Key Points:
-
Evaluate each manuscript critically in terms of its suitability for publication in the SCIENCE International Journal.
-
Assess the manuscript's novelty and general interest for the readers of SCIENCE International Journal.
-
Evaluate the validity of the described experiments.
-
Review the inclusion and adequacy of statistical analysis in the manuscript.
-
Assess the appropriateness and validity of the conclusions drawn.
-
Evaluate whether the literature has been sufficiently cited and discussed.
-
Provide specific, constructive criticism that offers clear guidance to the authors, especially if recommending revision. Authors should be aware of the specific experiments or revisions required to address the reviewer's concerns.
-
Avoid being excessively demanding, considering the time frame for revisions is typically one month (or three months for particularly time-consuming experiments).
-
Make a clear recommendation on whether the manuscript is worth revising.
-
Comment on any hindrance or confusion caused by the presentation or language of an otherwise potentially good paper.
Additional Considerations:
- Treat all information as confidential.
- Disclose any conflicts of interest.
- Provide the names of all individuals involved in reviewing the manuscript.
- Report any detected scientific misconduct.
- For revised manuscripts, refrain from introducing new issues that could have been addressed in the original review.
Before and during the review process, reviewers should consider the following:
-
Assess whether the manuscript aligns with their expertise. If it doesn't, inform the editor promptly and suggest an alternate reviewer if possible.
-
Determine if you have sufficient time to complete the review within two weeks. If not, inform the editor and recommend an alternate reviewer. If you cannot meet the deadline for a paper you agreed to review, contact the editor promptly.
-
Disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editors before conducting the review.
Confidentiality Note:
All information contained in the manuscript must be treated as confidential. Reviewers are prohibited from using data from the manuscripts for personal research or financial gain. Once a reviewer submits their report, they must destroy any electronic or print copies of the manuscript in their possession. Reviewers can cite the reviewed papers after the publication of the respective paper in the journal.
Assessing Manuscripts for Publication in SCIENCE International Journal:
Reviewers need to critically evaluate several aspects of the manuscript, including its relevance to SCIENCE International Journalreadership, novelty, technical aspects, discussion of the investigated field, reference citations, language, and presentation. The following sections discuss these aspects in detail:
a) Suitability: Comment on the manuscript's scope and its relevance to IJCRSEE readers. Provide reasons for your recommendation.
b) Novelty: Assess the importance and originality of the study, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses compared to current knowledge. Indicate whether the study significantly advances the field.
c) Validity of experiments: Evaluate the validity of the conducted experiments and the statistical methods employed. Note any flaws and suggest improvements to meet the acceptable standards.
d) Validity of Conclusions: Comment on whether the presented data support the drawn conclusions. Address any overlooked alternative hypotheses or conclusions.
e) Discussion of current literature: Assess the relevance, appropriateness, and currency of the cited references. Make suggestions for revising the reference list, including any significant papers that may have been overlooked.
f) Language and Presentation: Evaluate the manuscript's clarity, including the quality and comprehensibility of figures. Note instances where experiments, results, concepts, or conclusions may be misunderstood or misinterpreted due to poor writing. Distinguish between language/presentation issues that can be rectified and weaknesses that go beyond such issues.
Additionally, comment on:
- The accuracy of the manuscript's title in reflecting its content.
- The length of the manuscript, suggesting whether it should be shortened or expanded.
- The inclusion of additional figures (including explanatory schematic diagrams) or supplementary information.
g) Scientific Misconduct: Report any suspicions of scientific misconduct, such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation beyond standard practices, or a pattern of publishing multiple "thin" studies instead of comprehensive and significant ones.
Writing a Good Report
a) Summarize the key findings: Briefly summarize the main goals, key findings, strengths, and weaknesses of the study in a few sentences.
b) Be comprehensive: Address all the points mentioned in the detailed instructions (2a-g) in your report.
c) Be objective: Your report should be objective, and you should respect the authors' intellectual independence, avoiding insisting on a hypothesis-driven approach.
c) Provide a clear recommendation: Clearly indicate whether revising the manuscript according to your comments would result in a publication-worthy paper for the SCIENCE International Journal.
d) Provide specific, constructive criticism: Offer constructive feedback that helps the authors improve their work. Provide concrete suggestions to address identified weaknesses.
e) Avoid unnecessary demands: While it's important to point out minor technical or presentation issues, remember to focus on the overall importance and suitability of the study for publication. Avoid requesting unnecessary experiments that don't significantly advance the study. Keep in mind the typical revision timeframe and be realistic about additional experimentation.
f) Avoid being offensive: If a study is particularly weak, you may need to provide a negative report, but do so without being offensive or overly critical. Stick to the facts and avoid personal attacks. If you need to express frustration about a poor study, include those comments in the "Confidential comments to the Editor" section.
g) Disclose conflicts of interest: Declare any conflicts of interest you may have. Include this information in the "Confidential comments to editors" section.
Reviewing revised manuscripts:
a) Avoid raising new issues: Don't introduce new issues that could have been mentioned in the original assessment, but you can address concerns arising from new data added during the revision.
b) Check for up-to-dateness: Comment on whether any relevant work published during the revision period has been overlooked and ensure the manuscript, including the reference list, is as up-to-date as possible.
Next Steps:
Complete the "Reviewer's Comments" form and submit it to the editorial office by the deadline. Your recommendation will strongly influence the final decision, and your thorough and honest feedback is appreciated. Clearly indicate which comments are intended only for the editors and which can be shared with the authors. Reach out to the receiving editorial office with any questions or concerns.
The Editorial Process:
The editors make the final decision based on reviewers' input. If reviewers fundamentally disagree, the editors may share all the reviews and request additional comments to aid the decision-making process. Decisions are not necessarily based on majority rule, as expert input and other factors are considered.
Reviewer Recognition:
Reviewers play a crucial role in the peer-review process and should feel supported and recognized. The SCIENCE International Journal offers a reviewer certificate and confirmation letter upon request to acknowledge their contribution.
