We appreciate your time and expertise in reviewing manuscripts for our journal. To ensure a fair and rigorous peer-review process, please adhere to the following guidelines:
- General Responsibilities
- Confidentiality: As a reviewer, you must treat the manuscript you are reviewing as a confidential document. It should not be discussed with or shared with anyone outside the editorial team. The research and any associated findings are the intellectual property of the authors and must be handled with discretion.
- Competing Interests: Before agreeing to review a manuscript, please consider any potential competing interests that might affect your impartiality. If you have any direct or indirect connection to the research or authors, such as collaborations, personal relationships, or competing research, please disclose these to the editor. If your ability to provide an unbiased review is compromised, you should decline the invitation.
- Timeliness: Timely reviews are essential for the smooth progression of the peer-review process. Please aim to complete your review within the timeframe specified by the editorial office, typically 2-4 weeks. If you are unable to meet the deadline or require additional time, notify the editor as soon as possible.
- Manuscript Evaluation Criteria
- Key Results: Assess whether the manuscript presents clear and significant findings that contribute to the advancement of the field. The results should be well-explained and coherent with the research objectives.
- Validity: Evaluate the scientific rigor and validity of the findings. Consider whether the conclusions are backed by strong evidence and whether the interpretation of the results is appropriate and logical.
- Data and Methodology: Examine the methods and data closely. Ensure that the research design, data collection, and analytical methods are appropriate for the study’s aims. Any weaknesses in methodology should be highlighted, and the manuscript should provide enough detail for replication by other researchers.
- References: Check the accuracy and relevance of the cited literature. References should be up-to-date, well-balanced, and pertinent to the study.
- Reviewer Feedback
Review feedback is vital in helping authors improve the quality of their manuscripts. Reviewers should provide clear explanations and evidence to support their judgments, ensuring that both editors and authors can understand the reasoning behind their comments. In addition to identifying issues, please suggest improvements. Constructive suggestions are key to helping authors improve their work.