For Reviewers

1. GENERAL PEER -REVIEW GUIDELINES

General peer-review guidelines ensure a fair, objective, and constructive evaluation process for submitted manuscripts. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and avoid conflicts of interest, ensuring their assessments are unbiased. They should assess the manuscript's scientific merit, clarity, study design, methodology, statistical analysis, and relevance to the field. Ethical considerations, such as informed consent and ethical approval, must also be reviewed.

Feedback should be clear, specific, and actionable, offering both positive comments and constructive criticism. Reviewers should avoid personal attacks and focus on the quality of the research. Recommendations should be based on the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses, with decisions ranging from acceptance to revision or rejection.

Timeliness is crucial, and reviewers should communicate promptly if they cannot meet deadlines or complete the review. Ultimately, the goal is to support authors in improving their work while ensuring the integrity and quality of the research published, helping editors make informed decisions.

2.REVIEWERS' RESPOSIBILITIES

Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the integrity, quality, and rigor of the peer-review process. As impartial evaluators, they are expected to uphold ethical standards and provide constructive, timely feedback. Below are the key reviewer responsibilities and ethical considerations to ensure a fair and effective review process.

Reviewer Responsibilities

A.Providing Constructive and Objective Feedback

• Impartiality: Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript based solely on scientific or academic merit, without bias toward the author(s), institution, or field.
• Detailed Evaluation: Provide clear, actionable feedback, both in terms of major issues (e.g., flawed methodology) and minor issues (e.g., grammatical errors or formatting problems).

B.Assessing Manuscript Quality

• Originality: Ensure the work is original and adds value to the field, not duplicating or plagiarizing other studies.
• Relevance: The manuscript should be relevant to the journal’s scope, target audience, and contribute to the ongoing academic discourse.
• Methodology: Evaluate whether the research design, methods, and data analysis are appropriate and sound.
• Ethical Standards: Ensure that the manuscript adheres to ethical research practices, including proper treatment of human and animal subjects.
• Statistical Analysis: If applicable, assess the validity and appropriateness of statistical methods and data interpretation.
• References: Verify whether the manuscript includes relevant, up-to-date citations, and ensure no important references are missing.

C.Confidentiality

Manuscripts should be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose or share the manuscript with anyone without explicit permission. Reviewers should avoid using any ideas, data, or concepts from the manuscript for personal gain or professional advantage before the manuscript is published.

D.Timeliness

Reviewers should submit their feedback on time. If unable to meet the deadline, they should inform the editor and, if necessary, request an extension. Reviewers should confirm their availability and willingness to review the manuscript promptly after receiving the invitation.

3.ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR REVIEWERS

A. Conflicts of Interest

• Disclosure: Reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest (COIs) before accepting the review invitation. i.e. personal relationship with authors, professional relationship or rivalries, financial interest in the subject matter of the paper.
• Impartiality: If a conflict of interest is found after accepting the review, the reviewer should recuse themselves and inform the editor.

B.Bias and Fairness

• Unbiased Review: Reviewers must ensure their evaluation is based on the manuscript's scientific merit, not personal feelings toward the authors or their institution.
• Discrimination: Reviewers should avoid making judgments based on the author’s identity, nationality, gender, or other unrelated factors.
• Confidential Information: Reviewers should avoid using privileged information for personal or professional benefit.

C.  Plagiarism and Duplicate Publication

• Detecting Plagiarism: Reviewers should look for signs of plagiarism, including unattributed text or reused content from other sources.
• Duplicate Publication: The manuscript should not be under consideration by another journal simultaneously, and any prior publication must be properly referenced.

D.Ethical Treatment of Research

• Research Integrity: Reviewers should check whether the manuscript adheres to accepted ethical standards in research, especially in studies involving human. This includes:
• Verifying informed consent for human participants.
• Verifying the use of proper methodologies and adherence to guidelines (e.g., reporting clinical trials in accordance with CONSORT guidelines).

E.Reporting Ethical Concerns

• Raising Ethical Issues: If a reviewer suspects that there are ethical concerns, such as research misconduct, plagiarism, or unethical treatment of participants, they should bring it to the editor’s attention in a professional and confidential manner.

F. Respect for Authors' Work

• Respectful Criticism: Reviewers should provide feedback that is constructive, respectful, and professional, helping authors improve their work without being overly critical or disparaging.
• Timely Feedback: Reviewers should provide their feedback within the agreed timeframe to avoid unnecessary delays in the review process.

4.REVIEW PROCESS AND TIMELINE EXPECTATION

The review process is a key step in scholarly publishing, ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated for their quality, relevance, and contribution to the field. Clear timeline expectations help maintain the efficiency and fairness of this process, benefiting both authors and reviewers. Below is an outline of the typical review process and the associated timelines.

A. Submission of Manuscript

• Timeline: Manuscript submission by the author.
• Process:
• The author submits the manuscript to the journal, often through an online submission system.
• Upon submission, the manuscript is assigned an initial submission number or ID for tracking.

B. Initial Screening by Editors

• Timeline: Typically, 1–2 weeks.
• Process:
  • Completeness: Are all sections (abstract, introduction, methods, etc.) present?
  • Compliance: Does the manuscript meet the journal’s formatting, submission, and ethical guidelines?
  • Scope: Is the manuscript relevant to the journal’s aims and scope?
  • Plagiarism Check: The manuscript may undergo a plagiarism detection check.
  • If the manuscript meets the requirements, it proceeds to peer review.
  • If it does not, the manuscript may be rejected or sent back for revisions (e.g., formatting corrections).
• The editor or editorial team performs an initial review of the manuscript.
• Criteria: The manuscript is checked for:
• Outcome:

C.Assignment of Reviewers

• Timeline: 1–2 weeks after initial screening.
• Process:
• The editor assigns peer reviewers based on their expertise and availability.
• The editor may invite 2-3 reviewers, depending on the journal’s policy.
• Reviewer Selection: Reviewers are typically experts in the field who can evaluate the manuscript’s scientific validity and relevance.

D. Peer Review

• Timeline: Typically, 2–4 weeks (may vary depending on the reviewer’s availability).
• Process:
  • Originality and significance of the research.
  • Methodological rigor: Are the methods appropriate and well-explained?
  • Clarity: Is the manuscript well-written and logically structured?
  • Ethical considerations: Does the research meet ethical standards, especially for studies involving human or animal subjects?
  • Conclusion and Recommendations: Do the conclusions follow from the results?
• Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript, considering aspects like:
• Outcome: Reviewers submit their feedback and recommendations to the editor.

E.Editor’s Decision Based on Reviewer Feedback

• Timeline: Typically, 1–2 weeks after reviewers submit their feedback.
• Process:
  • Accept the manuscript (if reviewers recommend it).
  • Request revisions: The editor sends reviewer comments to the author with a request for revisions. This could be for minor or major revisions.
  • Reject the manuscript (if reviewers recommend it).
• The editor assesses the reviewers' comments and makes a decision regarding the manuscript’s future.
• The editor may:
• Outcome: The editor communicates the decision to the author along with reviewer comments.

F. Author Revisions (if applicable)

• Timeline: 1–3 weeks (may vary depending on the extent of revisions).
• Process:
• The author makes the requested revisions and submits a revised manuscript along with a response letter detailing how the reviewers' comments were addressed.
• If the manuscript requires major revisions, the timeline may be extended to allow authors more time for comprehensive changes.

G. Final Review of Revised Manuscript

• Timeline: Typically, 1–2 weeks after resubmission.
• Process:
• The editor may assign reviewers again, especially if substantial changes were made.
• Reviewers evaluate whether the authors have adequately addressed their comments and whether the manuscript is now suitable for publication.

H.Final Decision and Publication Preparation

• Timeline: 2–4 weeks after the final decision.
• Process:
• Once accepted, the manuscript enters the production phase, where it undergoes copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading.
• Authors may receive a proof of the manuscript for final approval before publication.
• Outcome: The manuscript is ready for publication in an upcoming issue of the journal, either online first or in a printed issue.

I.Total Review Timeline

• Typical Review Process: The entire process from submission to publication can take anywhere from 2 to 6 months, depending on the journal’s review process, the complexity of the manuscript, and the responsiveness of the authors and reviewers.

Timeline Expectations for Authors and Reviewers

• Reviewers:
• Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within 2–4 weeks of receiving the manuscript for review. If an extension is needed, the reviewer should notify the editor promptly.
• Reviewers should provide clear, constructive, and respectful feedback to help improve the manuscript.

5. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING MANUSCRIPT

When reviewing a manuscript for publication, reviewers must assess it based on several key criteria that ensure the research is robust, impactful, and clearly communicated. Below are the primary criteria for evaluating manuscripts, along with a breakdown of what reviewers should look for in each section.

 A.Originality

• Novelty: Does the manuscript present new, original ideas or findings? Is the research topic timely and relevant to the current academic or scientific landscape?
• Contribution to the Field: Does the study make a meaningful contribution to the existing body of knowledge? Is the research innovative, or does it replicate prior work without adding significant new insights?
• Uniqueness: Is the approach, methodology, or analysis unique, offering a fresh perspective or solution to a problem?

Reviewer's Focus:

• Look for gaps in existing literature that the manuscript addresses.
• Ensure the study’s novelty is clearly stated in the introduction and conclusion.

B.Significance 

• Impact: Does the manuscript have potential to influence its field, whether through advancing theoretical knowledge, improving practices, or shaping future research directions?
• Relevance: Does the research align with the journal's mission and scope? Is the study addressing a relevant and important problem in its discipline?
• Broader Implications: Does the research have practical applications, policy implications, or broader societal relevance?

Reviewer's Focus:

• Assess whether the manuscript addresses an important issue or problem.
• Consider the potential impact of the research on both the academic community and real-world applications.

C.Methodology

• Clarity and Appropriateness: Are the research methods clearly described and appropriate for the study’s objectives? Do they follow best practices in the field?
• Sampling and Data Collection: Is the sample size sufficient and representative? Are the data collection methods sound, and do they adhere to ethical guidelines (e.g., informed consent, data privacy)?
• Data Analysis: Are the statistical or analytical techniques appropriate for the data and research questions? Are they applied correctly?
• Reproducibility: Are the methods and procedures detailed enough that another researcher could replicate the study?

Reviewer's Focus:

• Evaluate whether the study’s methodology is rigorous, reproducible, and well-explained.
• Assess whether the choice of methodology aligns with the study’s goals and questions.

D. Results

• Clarity and Presentation: Are the results presented clearly and logically? Do the tables, figures, and graphs effectively communicate the data without overwhelming the reader?
• Accuracy: Do the results support the hypotheses or research questions stated in the introduction?
• Statistical Significance: If applicable, are statistical results reported with appropriate significance levels (e.g., p-values, confidence intervals)?
• Transparency: Are the results reported transparently, with any limitations or unexpected findings acknowledged?

Reviewer's Focus:

• Check whether the data is appropriately summarized and interpreted.
• Ensure the findings are presented accurately, with clear labeling of tables, figures, and any statistical analyses.

E.Discussion

• Interpretation of Results: Does the discussion provide a meaningful interpretation of the results? Are the findings compared to existing literature and explained in context?
• Conclusion: Does the discussion clearly tie the results back to the research questions and objectives? Are the conclusions supported by the data?
• Limitations: Does the manuscript acknowledge limitations in the study’s design, methods, or data? Are the limitations discussed transparently and constructively?
• Future Directions: Does the manuscript suggest areas for future research or practical applications based on the findings?

Reviewer's Focus:

• Assess whether the discussion is thoughtful and provides insight into the implications of the findings.
• Ensure that the conclusions are drawn logically from the results and that limitations are acknowledged.

F.Writing Style and Organization

• Clarity and Readability: Is the manuscript written clearly and logically? Are the ideas organized in a coherent manner, with a logical flow between sections?
• Conciseness: Is the manuscript concise, avoiding unnecessary repetition or jargon? Does it present information in a straightforward manner?
• Language: Is the writing grammatically correct, with appropriate spelling and punctuation? Is the language accessible to the intended audience without oversimplifying complex ideas?
• Structure: Does the manuscript follow the journal’s guidelines for structure (e.g., abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion)? Are all required sections present?

Reviewer's Focus:

• Evaluate whether the manuscript is well-written and effectively communicates its ideas.
• Check for clarity in the writing, proper use of language, and adherence to the journal’s formatting guidelines.

G.References

• Relevance: Are the references up-to-date, relevant, and comprehensive? Do they represent the major studies in the field and provide sufficient background?
• Citation Accuracy: Are the citations accurate and formatted correctly according to the journal’s guidelines?
• Proper Acknowledgment: Does the manuscript properly acknowledge prior work in the field and provide appropriate citations for sources and ideas that are not the author’s own?
• Balanced Reference List: Does the reference list include a mix of foundational works and recent publications? Is there an overreliance on self-citations or references to a limited range of sources?

Reviewer's Focus:

• Check the appropriateness and completeness of the reference list.
• Ensure that references are accurately cited and formatted.

6.SPECIFIC GUIDELINES BY STUDY TYPES

       A.Quantitative Studies (e.g., Experimental, Cross-sectional, Longitudinal)

• General Review Guidelines:
• Clarity of Research Question: Check if the research question is clear, focused, and measurable.
• Study Design: Evaluate whether the design is appropriate for addressing the research question (e.g., experimental, cohort, cross-sectional).
• Sampling: Review the sampling method and sample size calculation. Ensure the sample is representative, and consider whether there’s sufficient statistical power.
• Measurement Instruments: Ensure the instruments used for measurement are reliable, valid, and appropriate for the study.
• Data Analysis: Assess the appropriateness of statistical methods used. Review if the analysis matches the research design and if statistical assumptions are met.
• Control for Confounding: Verify if confounding variables have been adequately controlled, particularly in observational or experimental designs.
• Ethical Considerations: Check for clear ethical approval, informed consent, and confidentiality practices.
• Generalizability: Evaluate the extent to which the study’s findings can be generalized to the larger population.
• Results and Interpretation: Ensure that the results are clearly presented, with statistical significance explained. Review whether the authors have interpreted the results in light of the limitations.

        B.Qualitative Studies (e.g., Case Study, Grounded Theory, Ethnography, Phenomenology)

• General Review Guidelines:
• Research Design: Assess whether the study design (e.g., case study, ethnography) is appropriate for exploring the research question or phenomenon in depth.
• Sampling: Evaluate the sampling strategy, such as purposive or snowball sampling, to ensure it aligns with the study's goals.
• Data Collection: Review the methods of data collection (e.g., interviews, observations). Ensure they are appropriate for the research question and participants.
• Trustworthiness: Evaluate the credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability of the research findings. Methods like triangulation, member checking, and audit trails should be checked.
• Data Analysis: Ensure that the analysis process is well-documented and transparent. Review how themes or categories are developed and whether there is clear justification for these.
• Ethical Considerations: Examine how ethical issues such as informed consent, confidentiality, and researcher bias are addressed, particularly in sensitive topics.
• Reflexivity: Check for the researcher’s acknowledgment of their influence on the research process and interpretation.
• Contextualization: Ensure that the research provides rich context about the setting or participants, and whether this context is essential to understanding the findings.

C.Experimental Studies (e.g., Randomized Controlled Trials, Laboratory Experiments)

• General Review Guidelines:
• Randomization and Blinding: Ensure that randomization procedures are appropriate and that blinding (single or double) is used to prevent bias.
• Control Groups: Review whether control groups are properly defined and if they allow for valid comparisons with the experimental group.
• Intervention Protocol: Check whether the intervention (e.g., drug, program) is clearly defined and standardized across participants.
• Sample Size: Ensure the sample size is large enough to detect a meaningful effect and that power calculations are provided.
• Ethical Considerations: Confirm that the study adheres to ethical guidelines, with proper consent, risk minimization, and participant safety.
• Statistical Methods: Review the statistical analyses used to assess the outcomes, ensuring they are appropriate for the type of data and study design.
• Internal Validity: Examine potential threats to internal validity (e.g., confounding, selection bias) and how they are mitigated.
• External Validity: Consider the generalizability of the findings to broader populations or different settings.
• Results Interpretation: Ensure that the conclusions drawn are supported by the data, and check whether the limitations are acknowledged.

   D.Observational Studies (e.g., Cohort, Case-Control, Cross-sectional)

• General Review Guidelines:
• Study Design: Evaluate whether the chosen observational design (e.g., cohort, case-control) is suitable for answering the research question.
• Sampling: Assess whether the sample is representative of the population of interest and whether the sampling method is clearly described.
• Confounding Control: Check for efforts to control or account for confounding variables. This may include statistical techniques or matching methods.
• Bias Control: Review if potential biases (e.g., selection bias, recall bias) are minimized through study design or analysis.
• Ethical Considerations: Confirm that ethical approval was obtained, and that participant confidentiality and informed consent were properly addressed.
• Statistical Analysis: Ensure that the appropriate statistical techniques are used to assess associations (e.g., regression models, survival analysis).
• Limitations: Verify that the authors have clearly discussed the limitations of the study, including issues like bias and confounding.
• Generalizability: Review the extent to which the study's findings can be generalized to the broader population.

  E.Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

• General Review Guidelines:
• Clear Research Question: Ensure that the research question is clearly defined and focused.
• Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: Verify that the inclusion and exclusion criteria for study selection are clearly outlined and appropriate.
• Search Strategy: Check if the authors conducted a comprehensive literature search across multiple databases and grey literature sources.
• Quality Assessment: Assess the methods used to evaluate the quality of the studies included in the review. Look for use of established quality assessment tools.
• Data Extraction: Ensure that the process for extracting data is systematic, transparent, and standardized across studies.
• Statistical Methods: Evaluate the appropriateness of statistical techniques for synthesizing data, particularly in meta-analyses (e.g., random-effects or fixed-effects models).
• Heterogeneity: Review how heterogeneity between studies is assessed and addressed.
• Risk of Bias: Ensure that potential biases in the studies included in the review are thoroughly examined.
• Results and Interpretation: Ensure that the findings are clearly presented, and that the authors offer a balanced interpretation of the evidence. The limitations of the review should be acknowledged.
• Reporting Standards: Confirm that the review adheres to reporting guidelines. (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses).

   F.Case Studies

• General Review Guidelines:
• Case Selection: Review whether the case was chosen appropriately and whether its relevance to the research question is clearly explained.
• Context and Background: Ensure that the context, including any relevant history, environment, or circumstances of the case, is adequately provided.
• Data Collection: Evaluate the methods of data collection (e.g., interviews, document analysis) for their appropriateness and rigor.
• Analysis: Review the analysis to ensure it is thorough, transparent, and clearly linked to the research question.
• Findings and Implications: Ensure that the findings of the case study are clearly stated and supported by the data. Assess whether the case study offers broader insights or lessons.
• Generalizability: While case studies may not be generalizable, check if the authors discuss the extent to which their findings may apply to other similar cases.
• Ethical Considerations: Verify that ethical considerations, particularly around confidentiality and informed consent, are properly addressed.

    G.Longitudinal Studies

• General Review Guidelines:
• Study Design: Ensure that the longitudinal design is suitable for addressing the research question (e.g., studying changes over time or cause-effect relationships).
• Follow-Up and Attrition: Review the methods used to maintain participant follow-up over time and check how the study addresses attrition or dropout rates.
• Sample Size and Power: Assess whether the sample size is adequate to detect significant changes or effects over time.
• Data Collection: Ensure that data collection is consistent across time points and that any changes in measurement methods are documented.
• Statistical Methods: Ensure appropriate statistical techniques for time-series or repeated measures data (e.g., mixed-effects models).
• Confounder Control: Evaluate how confounding variables are controlled over time, particularly in observational longitudinal studies.
• Ethical Considerations: Confirm that the study has received appropriate ethical approval, and check the procedures for obtaining informed consent and managing participant data.

Key Considerations for Reviewers Across All Study Types:

• Clarity: Ensure the study is clearly written, with well-defined aims, methods, and conclusions.
• Rigor: Review whether the study follows the appropriate methodological standards for its type.
• Ethical Standards: Confirm that the study follows ethical guidelines, including informed consent, confidentiality, and minimizing harm.
• Limitations: Ensure that the limitations of the study are clearly identified and discussed.
• Reporting Standards: Check whether the study adheres to reporting guidelines specific to its type (e.g., CONSORT for randomized trials, STROBE for observational studies, or PRISMA for systematic reviews).

7. PROVIDING REVIEWERS FEEDBACK

Click here to access the reviewers' checklist that’s guide in providing reviewer’s feedback.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ScCo_4D5dfC3vZnXQviGOOQiQ1TcBOzPbDJ4H556Ro/edit?usp=sharing

8.IDENTIFING CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS

How to Identify:

• Funding Acknowledgments: Check the manuscript's Acknowledgements section for any financial sponsors or grants that might indicate a conflict.
• Personal Relationships with Funding Bodies: Consider if an author or has personal ties to companies, foundations, or organizations involved in the research. Relationships such as being employed by or receiving personal benefits from a related company may be a red flag.
• Conflicting Theories or Ideas: Does the author have a vested intellectual interest in promoting one particular theory, methodology, or finding? For example, a researcher with strong beliefs in a particular scientific theory may have a conflict of interest when reviewing or publishing a study that contradicts that theory.

9.CONFIDENTIALITY FOR REVIEWERS

How to Maintain Confidentiality:

• Avoid Direct Contact: If possible, avoid direct contact with authors outside of the review process to maintain confidentiality. All communication should go through the journal’s official channels.
• Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs): For highly sensitive topics, such as manuscripts involving proprietary data, authors may ask reviewers to sign NDAs. While rare, these agreements further ensure confidentiality is upheld.
• Secure Review Platforms: Ensure the manuscript is only accessible through secure, journal-approved platforms. This prevents unauthorized individuals from accessing the manuscript.

10.REFERENCES

1. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) http://www.consort-statement.org/
2. American Medical Association (AMA) Reviewer
3. British Medical Journals Reviewer Guidelines
4. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) http://www.prisma-statement.org/
5. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 
6. Committee on publication ethics