For Reviewers

Instructions for Reviewers

Thank you for agreeing to review a manuscript for our journal. Your review helps the editor make an informed decision and provides constructive feedback to the author(s).

  1. Core principle
    • Confidentiality: Manuscripts and reviews are confidential. Do not share or discuss them with others.
    • Conflict of interest: Decline the review if you have a conflict (personal, institutional, financial, or competitive) that may affect your impartiality.
    • Objectivity and respect: Evaluate the work, not the authors. Be clear, professional, and constructive.
    • Ethics: Inform the editor if you suspect plagiarism, duplicate submission/publication, fabricated or manipulated data, or other unethical practices.
  2. What a good review contains
    • Provide a brief summary (2–5 sentences) describing what the paper is about and its main findings.
    • State the main strengths of the manuscript.
    • List the major comments: key issues that must be addressed (methods, analysis, novelty, interpretation, structure).
    • List the minor comments: smaller improvements (clarity, terminology, formatting, references, figures/tables).
    • Choose and submit a recommendation (see Section 5).
    • Please keep comments specific and actionable. Point to exact sections, tables, figures, or sentences when possible.
  3. Evaluation criteria
    • Consider whether the manuscript fits the scope of the journal and is relevant to the field.
    • Consider whether it provides originality and contribution (novelty, scientific or practical value).
    • Check whether the methodology is appropriate and clearly described so the work is reproducible.
    • Assess whether results and analysis are valid and sufficiently supported (including appropriate statistics/models when applicable).
    • Check whether conclusions follow from the results and whether limitations are acknowledged.
    • Assess structure and clarity, including readability and overall organization.
      Check whether figures and tables are necessary, readable, and properly labeled.
      Check whether references are relevant, current, and correctly formatted.
  4. Comments to authors vs. comments to editor
    • Comments to the author(s) should be constructive and focused on improving the manuscript. Avoid any identifying information if the review is blind.
    • Confidential comments to the editor should be used for sensitive issues that should not be shared with authors (ethical concerns, suspected plagiarism, serious methodological flaws, or conflicts).
  1. Recommendation options
    • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with only minor editorial changes.
    • Minor revisions: Limited changes are needed; no major reanalysis is required.
    • Major revisions: Substantial changes are required; the manuscript may need re-review.
    • Reject: The manuscript has fundamental problems, is out of scope, lacks sufficient contribution, or raises serious ethical concerns.
  2. Timeliness

Please submit your review within the deadline stated in the invitation (typically 2–3 weeks). If you cannot meet the deadline, inform the editor as soon as possible.

  1. Practical steps in the system
    • Open the review invitation and select Accept or Decline.
    • Download and read the manuscript files.
    • Enter Comments to the Author(s) and, if needed, Confidential Comments to the Editor.
    • Select your Recommendation and submit the review.

Download Instructions for Reviewers (PDF)