Reviewer Guidelines

Do you have the time?

Reviewing an article is a complex process that requires focus and an eye for detail. Therefore, it is better to ensure and dedicate enough time to review assigned material to be able to constructively assess an author’s work for high quality material. Make sure you have organized your time schedule before committing to an article review process.

Are you a suitable reviewer?

Does it truly match your area of expertise?

The Editor who assigns the articles might not be aware of your research interests and focus. Therefore, only accept to review an article that fits your areas of expertise.

Will you be able to manage the deadlines given?

The Editor will provide the reviewer with specific deadline to deliver his/her review. This revision request requires confirmation within a couple of days. If no reply is received from the reviewer, an increase and rather delay in the revision process of an article will result. Rejecting an invitation to review would not cause any consequences and is rather encouraged.

If you think that the review process might take longer than the deadline’s time, please contact the Editor with a recommendation for extension. In this case, the Editor might ask you to suggest a different reviewer for the article. In general, if you think you are unable to complete an assigned review on time, you should decline the review request.

When reviewing an assigned article, consider:

  • Originality

      It is important to determine the originality of the article you are reviewing. The publishing Editor will provide the reviewer with a full similarity check report if necessary. Moreover, the reviewer should examine if the research question and article provide new and informative data. If the author presents a research topic that has been discussed before, forward any relevant references to the Editor.

  • Language and structure:

    • Title
      The title must clearly describe what the article discusses and include keywords regarding the topic.
    • Abstract
      A structured abstract should include all the required fields and provide information about the content of the article.
    • Introduction
      The introduction of the article should describe what the author is trying to present throughout the research conducted. The author should also mention how the research methods used in the article helped in conducting the research. The introduction should not be short of any important works mentioned in the article.
    • Methodology
      This section should include and explain how the research data was collected, if the equipment and physical resources used have been sufficiently described, and what were the procedures being followed. If there are new techniques used, they should be fully explained and provide details on the type of data.
    • Results
      Any results discovered should be clearly presented. A reviewer should take into consideration the relevance of the author’s investigation.
    • Conclusion/Discussion
      In this section of the article, the findings should be valid by reasons and supported by the results discussed throughout. The conclusion should be drawn according to the components discussed throughout the paper, and should not introduce any new points.
    • Graphics and tables
      The graphics and tables should be of benefit to the reader, and be an essential part of the full information provided throughout the article. The data presented in these should be accurate and follow the same format in order to be consistent.
    • Plagiarism
      Plagiarism is a serious issue and is always faced by researchers and reviewers. Therefore, if you think that the article being reviewed is a significant copy of another work, the Editor must be informed.

  • Layout and format:

      As authors should follow the journal’s guidelines, if the author does not meet these guidelines, and the Editor has not brought it to your attention to that during the invitation to review, you can flag this to the Editor, or mention it in the review. The Editor can choose to overlook the concerns found in the paper if he/she sees that it is original or interesting. In this case, the Editor may ask the author to edit these issues before the final acceptance, or the Editor may request the reviewer to restructure the paper before moving on with the review.