Guidelines for Reviewers

Guidelines for Reviewers

As a reviewer, your primary responsibility is to provide an objective, comprehensive, and constructive evaluation of the manuscript's quality, originality, and scientific rigor. Your insights will aid the authors in refining their work and assist the editors in determining whether to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript.

Key Considerations During the Review:

  • Is the research original and innovative?
  • Are the methods appropriate, and are the data robust and reliable?
  • Are the conclusions supported by the evidence presented?
  • Is the manuscript well-organized, clear, and easily comprehensible?
  • Does the research adhere to ethical standards?

Upon agreeing to review, you are expected to:

  • Confirm your availability and promptly notify the editor if you are unable to complete the review within the established timeframe.
  • Complete your review by the agreed deadline (typically 2-4 weeks). If additional time is needed, please inform the editorial office as soon as possible.

Upon Assignment, You Will Receive:

  • The manuscript for review.
  • Any supplementary materials, if applicable.
  • A set of review criteria tailored to the journal’s focus and guidelines.

Reviewer Confidentiality and Ethics

  • Confidentiality: All manuscripts you receive are confidential. Do not share, discuss, or distribute the manuscript to others without the editorial team's permission.
  • Ethical Standards: You must disclose any conflicts of interest that could affect your ability to provide an impartial review. If you identify the authors and believe this may compromise your objectivity, please inform the editor immediately.
  • Ethical Compliance: If you observe any potential ethical issues, such as plagiarism, data manipulation, or unethical research practices, report them to the editorial office.

Structure of the Review Report

Your review report should consist of two sections: comments for the editor and comments for the authors. Maintain a constructive tone, even if recommending rejection.

  • Provide a brief summary of your overall assessment of the manuscript.
  • Highlight any concerns related to ethical issues, conflicts of interest, or the manuscript's quality.
  • Indicate whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised (minor or major),or rejected, with clear justification for your recommendation.
  • Specify if there are parts of the manuscript that you are not qualified to reviewor if you suggest additional reviewers.

Comments for Authors: Focus on providing constructive feedback to enhance the manuscript.

  • Major Comments: Address significant methodological concerns, data analysis issues, or flaws in result interpretation. Explain why these issues are critical and offer suggestions for improvement.
  • Minor Comments: Note minor factual errors, unclear statements, inconsistencies, or typographical mistakes.
  • Clarity and Organization: Identify areas where the manuscript’s clarity, coherence, or structure could be improved.
  • References and Citations: Assess whether the manuscript appropriately references prior work and cites relevant literature.

Key Aspects to Evaluate:

  • Does the manuscript contribute significantly to the field?
  • Is the research question or hypothesis both novel and important?
  • Does the manuscript engage with and build upon current literature?
  • Are the methods suitable for addressing the research question?
  • Is the sample size adequate and representative?
  • Are the statistical analyses sound and properly reported?
  • Is the study replicable?
  • Are the results clearly presented and well-organized?
  • Are the figures, tables, and supplementary materials informative and necessary?
  • Are the conclusions justified by the data, or do they overreach?
  • Is the manuscript well-written, with a logical flow of ideas?
  • Are the introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections clearly defined?
  • Is the language appropriate for the journal’s audience?
  • Has the manuscript adhered to ethical guidelines in conducting the research (e.g., informed consent, ethical approval)?
  • Are all conflicts of interest and funding sources disclosed?
  • Is there any evidence of unethical practices, such as data fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism?

Review Recommendations

At the conclusion of your report, please select one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept as is: The manuscript is ready for publication with no or very minor revisions.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript is acceptable but requires minor changes (e.g., clarifications, corrections to figures, or typographical errors).
  • Major Revisions: The manuscript has potential but necessitates substantial revisions (e.g., reanalysis of data, methodological improvements, or restructuring).
  • Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication in its current form due to fundamental flaws or noncompliance with journal standards. Provide clear reasons for rejection and, if possible, suggestions for enhancement.

Constructive Criticism and Tone

  • Use professional and respectful
  • Offer specific, actionable feedback rather than vague criticisms.
  • When recommending revisions, suggest practical methods to address concerns.
  • Encourage improvement: Even when recommending rejection, provide feedback to help authors enhance their research for future submissions.

Declining a Review Request

If you are unable to review a manuscript due to time constraints, a conflict of interest, or lack of expertise in the subject area, please decline the invitation promptly. If possible, suggest alternate reviewers who may be more suited to the task.

Reviewing Revised Manuscripts

If the authors revise their manuscript incorporating your feedback, you may be asked to review the revised version. In this case:

  • Evaluate whether the authors have adequately addressed your concerns and those of other reviewers.
  • Ensure that the revised manuscript meets the journal's standards.
  • Provide a new recommendation based on the revised manuscript.

Recognition of Reviewers

IJAI recognizes and appreciates the contributions of peer reviewers. Reviewers may opt to:

  1. Have their names included in the journal’s annual Acknowledgment of Reviewers.
  2. Receive a certificate of review for their contributions.

Be eligible for recognition through reviewer awards or other forms of acknowledgment for high-quality reviews.