Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers are gatekeepers for quality and custodians of trust. Expected responsibilities include:
- Objectivity & Evidence-based Evaluation: Provide impartial assessments grounded in evidence and scholarly standards.
- Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript as privileged information. Do not share or use content for personal advantage.
- Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Declare any potential conflicts (personal relationships, direct competition, and financial interests) to the editor immediately; decline review if a significant conflict exists.
- Timeliness: Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or notify the editor promptly if delay is necessary.
- Constructive Tone: Frame critiques respectfully and focus on the work rather than the authors.
- Adherence to Ethics: Report suspected ethical issues (e.g., plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation) to the editor with supporting details.
Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts against the following dimensions and provide specific, evidence-based comments:
Originality & Contribution
- Does the manuscript offer new empirical findings, theoretical development, methodological innovation, or a novel synthesis?
- Are the research questions and hypotheses clearly articulated and justified in the context of existing literature
Methodological Transparency & Rigor
- Are study design, sampling, and procedures described with sufficient detail to assess validity and reproducibility?
- For empirical work: are measures reliable and valid? Are sampling and sample-size considerations appropriate?
- For quantitative analyses: are statistical methods suitable, correctly applied, and reported (effect sizes, confidence intervals, assumptions checked)?
- For qualitative or mixed-methods: are analytic frameworks and coding strategies clear and justified?
Validity of Results & Strength of Evidence
- Are the results reported transparently (including negative or null findings)?
- Do conclusions follow logically from the evidence? Are alternative explanations considered?
Quality of Analysis & Interpretation
- Are interpretations cautious and consistent with the data?
- Is there over-interpretation or extrapolation beyond what the data permit?
Ethical Soundness
- Are ethics approvals and consent procedures documented? Are there concerns regarding participant safety, data privacy, or conflicts of interest?
Clarity of Writing & Structure
- Is the manuscript organized logically with coherent argumentation?
- Are tables/figures clear, necessary, and described adequately?
- Are references current, relevant, and properly cited?
Reproducibility & Openness
- Is there access to underlying data/code where appropriate? Are data-sharing statements present?
Reviewers should be explicit about which issues are mandatory for acceptance and which recommendations to improve the manuscript are.
Review Report Structure
A high-quality review typically contains:
- Concise Summary (2--4 sentences): Summarize the manuscript's aims, methods, and principal findings in neutral terms to demonstrate comprehension.
- Overall Recommendation: (Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject) with a brief rationale.
- Major Concerns (numbered): Critical flaws that must be addressed (methodological shortcomings, unsupported claims, ethical lapses).
- Minor Concerns / Editorial Suggestions: Stylistic edits, clarifications, reference corrections, figure/table improvements.
- Specific Line/Section Comments (optional): Point-by-point notes keyed to page/line numbers for precise edits.
- Confidential Comments to the Editor (if needed): Signal sensitive concerns (e.g., suspected misconduct) that should not be shared with authors.
- Checklist (optional): A short checklist confirming e.g., ethics approval present, trial registration included, data availability statement present.
Encourage reviewers to provide suggested text for problematic passages when helpful and to indicate whether changes can be verified by the editor or require re-review.
