Instruction for Reviewers

#I. Introduction

We acknowledge and appreciate the pivotal role of reviewers in the peer-review process. These guidelines aim to provide the necessary guidance for reviewers undertaking reviews for our publication.

#II. Accepting the Review Invitation

Upon receiving a review invitation, kindly consider the following:

  1. Expertise: Ascertain whether the manuscript’s topic and methodology align with your domain of expertise.
  2. Confidence: Assess your confidence in evaluating the manuscript. Even if your expertise covers only a subset of the study, you can still undertake the review. However, delineate clearly which aspects of the study your review encompasses.
  3. Conflict of Interest: Evaluate potential conflicts of interest, such as associations with authors or their affiliations.
  4. Availability: Assess your availability to complete the review within the given timeframe. If an extension is required, please communicate this need promptly.

In case you decline our invitation, we would appreciate recommendations for potential alternate reviewers.

#III. Review Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are expected to furnish our editors with comprehensive information for decision-making and constructive feedback for authors. The manuscript evaluation should consider:

  1. Technical Soundness: Assess whether the study adheres to the appropriate research methodology.
  2. Data Support: Evaluate if the claims align with the presented data, and if not, specify the additional evidence required.
  3. Statistical Analysis: Ascertain the robustness of the statistical analysis.
  4. Data Availability: Check if the data availability meets your research community’s standards.
  5. Literature Context: Evaluate whether the claims are appropriately contextualized within the existing literature.
  6. Manuscript Revision: Identify potential areas of revision to enhance the manuscript’s quality.

The task is to evaluate the paper’s scientific quality, not its significance, which will be determined by the research community post-publication.

#IV. Preparing the Report

The review should be submitted through our structured report on our submission system. While preparing your report:

  1. Begin with a brief summary of the manuscript and your overall impression.
  2. Distinguish your comments into major issues (mandatory revisions) and minor issues (discretionary changes).
  3. If recommending rejection, detail your concerns to guide authors in making improvements.
  4. You can provide separate comments to the Editor, including ethical concerns or aspects of the manuscript you couldn’t assess.

Ensure your feedback is courteous and professional.

#V. Revised Manuscripts

For manuscripts undergoing revision, we may solicit your review again. Ensure consistency in your feedback across review rounds. If the revised manuscript meets your approval, you may recommend its acceptance.

#VI. Ethics in Reviewing

Reviewers must uphold the highest ethical standards:

  1. Confidentiality: Respect the confidentiality of the review process.
  2. Objectivity: Evaluate manuscripts objectively, without personal bias.
  3. Conflicts of Interest: Declare any potential conflicts of interest.
  4. Timeliness: Adhere to the agreed-upon timelines.

#VII. Checklist for Reviewing

This checklist serves as a guide to ensure a thorough and effective review:

  1. Assess your expertise and availability.
  2. Evaluate the manuscript based on the outlined criteria.
  3. Prepare the report, segregating major and minor issues.
  4. Maintain professional and courteous feedback.
  5. Evaluate the revised manuscript, if required.
  6. Adhere to ethical standards.

By adhering to these guidelines, you contribute significantly to maintaining the high scientific standards of our publications. We appreciate your time and commitment in this essential academic endeavor.