Role of Reviewers

In the modern age of science and scientific achievements, act of “Reviewing” the latest accomplishments plays an important part in the promotion of rigour and contribution of knowledge. Consequently, the role of “Reviewers” is crucial in the dissemination and advancement of science. Reviewers assist editors to make decisions for manuscripts/papers to be published in a scientific journal. In return, reviewers will have the opportunity to gain/obtain detailed insight into contemporary opinions, ideas, notions, thinking, theories, trends, results and outcomes of latest research even before the science is published and/or accessed by public domain. Hence, reviewers are required to strictly/confidentially treat and manage the information on authors and their papers; and with their positive, unbiased and constructive comments, guidance, suggestions and/or recommendations, they are expected to assist authors with the improvement/development/betterment of their work and promotion of the standard of academic writing. Nevertheless, negative, biased and unconstructive criticism may disappoint authors from active/further participation in research and publication of science. Authors spend much effort, energy and time writing a paper; and thus, reviewers should dedicate themselves/allocate sufficient time to reviewing/refereeing papers. When a reviewer believes that the paper is not in her/his area/scope of expertise, they are expected to inform the Editor-in-Chief so that an alternative reviewer can be introduced.

• Do’s of Reviewers

1. Deliver positive, constructive and unbiased reviews in a timely manner.
2. Declare any possible, potential and/or real conflicts of interest.
3. Exclude themselves from reviewing papers if, for any reason, the reviewer believes she/he is not able to review/referee the manuscript in an honest, proper and unbiased fashion.
4. Inform editor(s)/journal on any possible/potential limitation to review/referee a paper.
5. Notify editor(s)/journal if she/he has reviewed/refereed a similar and/or same manuscript previously/for another journal.
6. Declare if there is/are conflict(s) of interest when the reviewer is asked to review/referee a paper similar to the manuscript(s)/paper(s) the reviewer has submitted to other journals and/or has prepared and published.
7. Keep the submission and its content for review thoroughly confidential.
8. Inform the Editor-in-Chief, editor(s) and journal of any circumstances causing delay in their review/refereeing.
9. State/document positive/constructive/unbiased comments for the author(s) of the manuscript in addition to the confidential comments sent to the Editor-in-Chief and editor(s).
10. Ensure that the reviewer’s positive/constructive/unbiased comments follow the guidelines and checklists of the confidential review.
11. Inform the Editor-in-Chief, editor(s) and journal of any type of suspicion and demand advice/assistance/guidance on how to proceed.

• Don’ts of Reviewers

1. Give consent to the Editor-in-Chief, editor(s) and journal to review/referee a manuscript/paper to obtain information for personal benefits without having genuine intention for the review.
2. Contact colleagues/others on the review of a manuscript/paper without acquiring permission form the Editor-in-Chief, editor(s) and journal.
3. Use knowledge and science of the manuscript/paper to be reviewed for their own benefit and/or plagiarize science/materials within the manuscript/paper.
4. Delay sending reports on purpose.
5. Give personal/derogatory/offensive comments on authors in the review.
6. Ask and persuade authors to manage bibliography/include citations to receive more citation for their own personal work.
7. Have direct contact and/or establish a direct connection with authors.

Reviewers are expected to consider the structure as well as the content of the manuscript/paper to be reviewed/refereed. The following points are recommended to be deliberated; however, reviewers could recognise what points to be elaborated in each manuscript/paper. Some manuscripts/papers may need additional information.

Points on Structure

• Is the title of manuscript(s)/paper(s) sufficiently informative (in accordance with the guide/instructions for authors)?
• Is the abstract of manuscript(s)/paper(s) appropriately styled/formatted and properly included (in accordance with the guide/instructions for authors)?
• Are the addressed question(s) and gap(s) of the presented knowledge properly focused?
• Are the objectives of the manuscript(s)/paper(s) appropriately/clearly mentioned?
• Are the described methods and materials accurately defined?
• Are the discussed results/outcomes succinctly presented?
• Have authors suitably considered relevant articles/papers in the corresponding literature?
• Does the manuscript/paper include a proper discussion of results? Are the implications/associations of results correctly presented in the discussion?
• Is the used bibliography thorough, updated and recent?

Points on Content

• Does the manuscript/paper present new science to the current knowledge as evidence and/or interpretation?
• Has the manuscript/paper properly deliberated an issue of concern in the corresponding field?
• Has the manuscript/paper appropriately addressed international readership?
• Is there an argument? where is it presented? Is it fair or sound?
• Is the obtained information properly support the conclusions drawn?
• Are there omissions in the data/information, logic, coverage and/or presentation in the manuscript/paper?
• Has the manuscript correctly followed the basic outlines/formats described for academic paper writing? Is the paper academically-written? Are data presented via figures, tables, diagrams, graphs, etc.?
• If there are mathematical calculations and/or numeric information used in the manuscript, are they correct?

Length of Manuscript/Paper

It is of great importance that manuscript(s)/paper(s) is/are clear in message and concise in length. Reviewers are expected to comment author(s) if the reviewer believes the paper is not of appropriate length. Long and lengthy introductions/discussions/references are discouraged. Reviewers are highly endorsed to express/share their constructive, positive and unbiased recommendations.

Rules of Peer-reviewing

1. Editor-in-Chief and editors are responsible for the quality of the journal and the science reported in the journal. They should ensure that what is said is accurate, ethical and relevant to the readership.
2. Process of peer-review must involve external reviewers.
3. The submission of a manuscript/paper and its supplementary must be considered thoroughly confidential by the editorial office, its personnel and all staff involved in the process of peer-review.
4. The reviewers and their identities must be kept completely confidential unless an open peer-review process is considered.
5. Reviewers are responsible for providing comments/suggestions/recommendations/advice on manuscript(s)/paper(s) whereas editors make final decisions.
6. Reviewers are responsible for the objective assessment/evaluation of manuscript(s)/paper(s) and reviewing/refereeing the submitted work.
7. Editors-in-Chief must have complete/thorough/full editorial independence.
8. Decisions of editor(s) must be based upon the merits of submitted work and its suitability for the journal. The decisions made by editor(s) cannot/must not be affected by the origins of the paper, determined via the policies outside the organisation, and dictated by commercial reasons.
9. All persons involved in the peer-review process must fully act in accordance with highest internationally accepted ethical standards.
10. Information/data/science/knowledge received during the submission and/or peer-review process of manuscript(s)/paper(s) must not/cannot be used by anyone involved in the process for their/other’s advantage/disadvantage and/or to discredit others.
11. In peer-review process, all parties must declare any existing/potential/possible conflicts of interest and exclude themselves from reviewing/refereeing any paper the parties believe they cannot review/referee fairly/objectively.
12. Any possible type of conflict(s) of interest, potential or existing, must not/cannot be allowed to affect the submission of a manuscript/paper, peer-review process and/or its publication.
13. Alleged/suspected misconduct must not/cannot be disregarded/ignored.
14. Journal and editors are responsible for keeping a scholar/academic record of a manuscript/paper sound and free from incorrect information/fraudulence.

Online Access to Review a Manuscript/Paper

After the submission of a manuscript/paper, a request email is sent to the nominated reviewer(s) for conducting a review. The invited reviewer(s) are required to take the following steps:

1. Reviewers should log into the website of the journal to indicate whether she/he will accept/reject the review, have access to the submission and register/record their review/ recommendations.
2. Reviewer(s) should decide whether she/he would reject/accept the review.
3. Should the reviewer decide not to accept the review, she/he has to mention a reason.
4. Should the reviewer decide to accept the review, she/he has to study/read/follow the reviewers’ guidelines/instructions.
5. Reviewer(s) should download the submitted manuscript/paper (and possible supplementary files, if necessary) via clicking on the corresponding name/title.
6. Reviewer(s) should complete the score sheet/review form via responding to all given fields/questions.
7. Reviewer(s) could select the reviewed manuscript/paper and final recommendations, and then upload/submit them to the editor beside the completed score sheet/review form (optional).