Accept review requests only if you have the necessary expertise and can complete the review on time.
Maintain confidentiality: do not share details of the manuscript or your review with anyone.
Avoid using information from the manuscript for personal or professional gain.
Declare conflicts of interest and seek guidance if unsure.
Remain objective and constructive, avoiding personal or derogatory comments.
Conduct reviews fairly, without bias toward the authors’ nationality, gender, religion, or affiliations.
Contribute to the review process reciprocally by completing reviews in a timely manner.
Upon Receiving a Review Request
Respond promptly to the journal, especially if declining the request.
Accept only if you have the expertise and can meet the deadline.
Declare conflicts of interest, such as recent collaborations, institutional affiliations, or competing work.
Review the manuscript afresh if previously reviewed for another journal.
Decline if you only wish to read the manuscript without providing a review.
Section-by-Section Review
Introduction
Check that the introduction sets out the research argument and recent literature.
Assess whether the study highlights knowledge gaps and justifies its significance.
Ensure the introduction identifies the target audience and demonstrates originality.
Verify that references are recent and relevant unless citing seminal works.
Confirm that the research aims are clearly stated at the end of the introduction.
Materials and Methods
Ensure the research is replicable with proper controls, repeated analyses, and adequate sampling.
Check if the methods are detailed and repeatable so other researchers can replicate the study.
Evaluate whether the research is robust, ensuring sufficient data points and control for biases.
Verify adherence to ethical standards and best practices (e.g., CONSORT for trials).
Recommend rejection if the study does not meet ethical or methodological standards.
Results and Discussion
Confirm that the data are clearly described and contextualized.
Ensure authors refer to statistical analyses, including significance and fit.
Evaluate whether trends are explained and supported by published literature.
Ensure a logical narrative that integrates all findings into a coherent conclusion.
Assess whether inconsistencies or gaps are acknowledged and addressed.
Conclusions
Check that the conclusions reflect the research aims and are evidence-based.
Ensure conclusions are not surprising or unsupported by data.
Recommend revisions if conclusions need clearer justification.
Figures, Graphs, and Tables
Verify that visual elements are clear, well-labeled, and statistically accurate.
Assess whether data presentation supports the discussion and conclusions.
Ensure sufficient data points exist, especially in time-series studies.
Identify any unexplained image manipulations and report concerns to the editor.
References
Check references for accuracy and proper formatting.
Assess whether citations adequately support claims and include diverse perspectives.
Ensure references are balanced, avoiding excessive self-citation or omission of contradictory studies.
Plagiarism
Identify whether the study is overly similar to existing research.
If suspected, report concerns to the editor and suggest differentiation of findings.
Ensure proper citation of all referenced work.
Structuring Your Review Report
Summary
Begin with positive feedback to encourage the author.
Summarize the manuscript’s content, findings, and significance.
Comment on originality, strengths, and completeness.
Highlight any major flaws or oversights.
Major Issues
Identify fundamental flaws in the study design or analysis.
Ensure the study acknowledges similar existing work.
Assess whether claims challenging current thinking are well-supported.
Recommend major revisions if necessary, specifying required changes.
Report ethical concerns confidentially to the editor.
Minor Issues
Point out ambiguities or unclear statements.
Suggest corrections for inaccurate or missing citations.
Identify factual, numerical, or unit errors.
Ensure figures and tables are properly labeled and necessary.
Peer Review Presentation and Style
Be polite, honest, and constructive to help authors improve their work.
Write clearly, avoiding overly complex language.
Number points and refer to specific pages/lines for clarity.
Treat the author's work as you would want yours to be treated.
Confidential Comments to Editors
Use this section for serious concerns (e.g., plagiarism, fraud, conflicts of interest).
Avoid making negative comments here that you wouldn't say to the author.
Peer Review Recommendations
Accept Submission: Provide justification and suggest minor improvements.
Revisions Required: Specify whether major or minor changes are needed and indicate if you will review the revision.
Resubmit for review: Specify if major data are missing in the submission files and it requires resubmission.
Resubmit Elsewhere: If you suggest to refer to another journal due to not being within the scope of the journal.
Decline Submission: If the manuscript has serious flaws, provide constructive feedback for improvement.
See Comments: If it should be sent to the editor for further evaluation.
By following these guidelines, reviewers ensure a fair, high-quality peer-review process that upholds the integrity of Triple R journal.
To complete the review process, please follow these steps:
Accept the review invitation by clicking the attributed link in the email and afterward, click the “Accept Review” button; or skip the automatically opened email.
Familiarize yourself with this reviewer guideline.
Download the manuscript and any supplementary files by clicking on their respective file names.
Fill out the review form; it consists of two sections: "For author and editor" and "For editor only".
If desired, you may upload additional files by following the optional step for reviewers.
Select the final recommendation from the drop-down menu and submit the review to the editor by clicking the "Submit Review" button. An automatic email will appear to notify the section editor that you have completed the review.