Reviewer Selection Process and Guidelines

 

Reviewer Selection Process and Guidelines

■ Reviewer Selection Process

To ensure fair, expert, and unbiased peer review, the journal follows a rigorous reviewer selection process:

  1. Subject Expertise: Reviewers must possess deep expertise in the manuscript’s subject area, evidenced through prior publications or professional experience.
  2. Academic Qualifications: A minimum of a postgraduate degree (preferably Ph.D. or equivalent) in a relevant discipline is required.
  3. Research and Publication Record: Preference is given to reviewers with a proven track record of research publications in reputable, peer-reviewed journals.
  4. Professional Standing: Reviewers must be affiliated with recognized academic or research institutions or have significant experience in industry research roles.
  5. Conflict of Interest Check: Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest — personal, financial, or academic — related to the manuscript or its authors.
  6. Prior Review Experience: Reviewers with experience in peer review or editorial board participation are prioritized.
  7. Availability and Commitment: Reviewers should be able to dedicate sufficient time to conduct a thorough and timely evaluation.
  8. Ethical Compliance: Reviewers must adhere to confidentiality and ethical standards as outlined by COPE and the journal’s policies.

■ Reviewer Guidelines – Do’s

  1. Maintain Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript and related materials as confidential. Do not share, discuss, or use its content for personal gain.
  2. Be Objective and Constructive: Evaluate the manuscript fairly and impartially, providing clear, evidence-based comments aimed at improving the work.
  3. Provide Detailed Feedback: Highlight strengths, weaknesses, and specific areas needing improvement (e.g., methodology, originality, clarity, references).
  4. Respect Deadlines: Complete the review within the agreed time frame or request an extension if necessary.
  5. Disclose Conflicts of Interest: Inform the editor immediately if there is any personal, professional, or financial conflict with the manuscript or its authors.
  6. Focus on Content, Not Identity: Assess the work on its merit, independent of the author’s gender, nationality, institution, or seniority.
  7. Use Ethical Language: Provide feedback politely and professionally — criticism should be directed toward the research, not the researcher.
  8. Check for Ethical Issues: Report any suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, or ethical misconduct to the editorial office.

■ Reviewer Don’ts

  1. Disclose Manuscript Content: Do not share the manuscript or its data with colleagues or third parties without explicit editor permission.
  2. Contact Authors Directly: All communications must go through the journal’s editorial system; do not contact authors personally.
  3. Delay Reviews Intentionally: Avoid unnecessary delays or failure to submit reviews within the deadline.
  4. Use Unpublished Data: Do not use any unpublished ideas, data, or findings from the manuscript for personal research or benefit.
  5. Provide Biased Judgments: Avoid favoritism or negative bias based on nationality, institutional affiliation, or prior interactions.
  6. Delegate Review Without Permission: Do not pass the review assignment to a student or colleague without prior approval from the editor.
  7. Focus on Minor Errors Only: Avoid excessive focus on language or formatting when substantial content issues exist.
  8. Make Personal or Hostile Remarks: Do not use unprofessional, demeaning, or emotional language in your feedback.

■ Reviewer Acknowledgment and Ethics

Reviewers who consistently deliver high-quality, timely reviews may be recognized on the journal’s annual acknowledgment list. The journal adheres to COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers to promote fairness, integrity, and accountability in scholarly publishing.