Peer Review Guidelines

Scientific Reviews – An International Journal

Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the scientific quality and credibility of Scientific Reviews – An International Journal. The peer review process relies on the professional expertise, fairness, and timely contributions of reviewers to ensure that published work meets international academic standards.

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the journal’s aims and scope as well as these peer review guidelines to ensure the manuscript aligns with their expertise. If a manuscript falls outside a reviewer’s area of specialization, the reviewer should promptly inform the editorial office so that an alternative expert may be invited. Suggestions for suitable reviewers are appreciated in such cases. Reviewers are also expected to complete reviews within the designated time frame. If additional time is required, reviewers should promptly contact the editorial office to request an extension.

Reviewers must uphold high ethical standards throughout the review process. Any potential conflicts of interest, including professional collaborations, institutional affiliations, or personal relationships with authors, must be disclosed to the editorial office. Reviewers should decline assignments where such conflicts could influence objective judgment. When uncertainty exists, reviewers should inform the editorial office so that an appropriate decision can be made.

Confidentiality is a fundamental requirement of peer review. Reviewers must treat all manuscript content as confidential and may not use unpublished material for personal research or professional benefit. Manuscripts should not be shared with third parties without prior permission from the editorial office. Individuals who legitimately assist in the review process must also maintain confidentiality, and their contribution may be recorded appropriately.

The journal follows a single-blind peer review model in which reviewers know the identities of authors, but reviewer identities remain anonymous to authors. Reviewers are therefore requested not to include personal identifying information within review reports. All review communications must be conducted through the journal’s submission system or editorial office rather than directly with authors.

Reviews must be objective and unbiased. Manuscripts should be evaluated solely on scientific merit regardless of authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, political beliefs, or other non-scientific factors. If reviewers encounter possible research or publication misconduct, including plagiarism, duplicate publication, ethical violations, or data manipulation, they should notify the editorial office immediately so that appropriate action can be taken.

During evaluation, reviewers are expected to assess several key aspects of the manuscript. These include the novelty of the study, determining whether it presents new findings or advances the field. Reviewers should consider the significance and relevance of the research topic, evaluating whether it contributes meaningfully to current knowledge. Scientific soundness must be assessed by examining research design, methodology, data analysis, and whether conclusions are supported by evidence. Clarity of presentation is also important, including logical organization, readability, quality of figures and tables, and whether conclusions summarize findings effectively. Reviewers should also comment on language quality and readability where improvements may enhance communication.

A complete review report typically consists of constructive comments addressing strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, including suggestions for improvement. Reviewers should provide clear feedback that helps authors improve their work while guiding editorial decisions. In addition, reviewers must provide an overall recommendation, selecting among acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. If reviewers wish to evaluate revised versions, they should indicate this preference in their report.

The journal recognizes the essential contributions of reviewers and seeks to acknowledge their service. Annual acknowledgments may be published recognizing reviewers’ efforts in maintaining publication quality. Reviewers may receive certificates of recognition following completion of reviews. Reviewers are also encouraged to record their peer review contributions through services such as Publons and link them to their ORCID profiles for professional recognition, where applicable.

Further details regarding editorial workflow and responsibilities can be found in the journal’s Peer Review Policy, Editorial Process, and Guest Editor Guidelines sections.