- Two or three experts will review the manuscripts in order to quickly reach the first conclusion. Reviewers are free to sign their reports, though it is not required. Additionally, any conflicts of interest must be disclosed.
- Reviewers should concentrate on a manuscript's scientific quality rather than its extensive linguistic or copyediting needs. They should also consider the overall style, which should follow best practises for concise and clear academic writing. If reviewers find that a manuscript needs linguistic revisions, they should let the authors and editor know about it in their report.
- Reviewers are expected to assess the manuscript's coherence and scientific soundness, as well as its level of interest and writing quality.
- When there is a significant difference in opinion between reviews or between authors and reviewers, the editors may decide to make a judgement call based on their area of expertise or seek counsel from a journal editorial board member.
- Reviewers are also encouraged to list any articles that stand out as particularly interesting or important. These papers could receive more attention and external publicity, such as news releases sent to science journalists and the general public.
- The Subject Editor may invite the Reviewer to assess the updated draught of the manuscript in light of the suggestions made by the Reviewer in the first review round during a second review round.
- Reviewers are requested to provide kind, helpful reports. Reports that could be offensive or inaccurate will be withdrawn.
- Reviewers are requested to begin their report with a very brief synopsis of the material they are reviewing. This will make it easier for the editors and authors to determine if the reviewer accurately interpreted the manuscript or whether a report could be incorrect.
- Reviewers are also invited to remark on the creativity, organisation, and prior research: (1) Does the work provide sufficient novelty and advance knowledge of the subject at hand? Is the labour primarily repetitive and confirmatory? Is the introduction succinct and easy to understand? Does it provide the background information a reader needs to understand the objectives, tested hypotheses, experimental design, or methods? Are the materials and methods suitably and clearly described? When deciding between a group of equivalent methods, are justifications given? Are the findings succinctly yet clearly described? Do they have anything to do with the introduction's topic? Are opposing ideas or hypotheses appropriately addressed and rationally connected to one another? Do the conclusions seem logical? Is the publication properly referencing earlier research? Are the cited sources accurate, full, and necessary? Is there any evidence that a significant portion of the article was plagiarised?
- Reviewers shouldn't evaluate articles when they have ties or connections with any of the authors, businesses, or institutions associated with the papers that are competitive, cooperative, or include other relationships or connections.
- Reviewers should take all information about papers as sensitive information and maintain it secret.
- Reviewers should point out pertinent published works that the authors have not mentioned.
- Additionally, reviewers must draw the Editors' attention to any significant similarities or overlaps between the article being considered and any other published paper that they are personally aware of.
