Reviewer Guideline

This guide is intended for reviewers working with journals that use the OJS infrastructure. Its purpose is to support a technically correct, ethically sound, and constructive peer review process.

Peer review is a core component of scholarly publishing. Reviewers are expected not only to provide a recommendation, but also to deliver feedback that helps improve the scientific quality of the manuscript and supports the editor’s decision-making.

1. Review Invitation

1.1 Receiving the Invitation
Review invitations are sent automatically by email through the journal system. The email usually includes the manuscript title and the review deadline.
You may access the journal using the email link, or you may log in directly to the journal system where assigned submissions will be visible.

1.2 Checklist Before Accepting

  • Expertise match: Is the manuscript within your area of expertise? If not, inform the editor and consider suggesting an alternative reviewer.
  • Availability: Can you complete the review within the indicated timeframe? If not, notify the editor as early as possible.
  • Conflict of interest: If any conflict exists (personal, institutional, financial, or academic), inform the editor and decline the invitation.

2. Login and Finding Assigned Submissions

After logging in to the journal, the Dashboard is displayed. Assigned submissions are listed in the review queue. Click View to open the submission and access details.

3. Accepting or Declining the Review

On the submission page, you can review the title, abstract, keywords, and the review schedule. You will typically be asked to accept a policy/terms statement before proceeding. Then you may Accept Review or Decline Review Request.

Note: Some journals restrict file downloads until the review is formally accepted. This depends on journal settings.

4. Downloading and Reviewing Files

After accepting the review, you may download the manuscript file (PDF/DOCX) and any supplementary files. These files must be used strictly for review purposes and must not be shared or discussed publicly.

5. Review Criteria

  • Originality and contribution: Does the work add value to the field and address a clear gap?
  • Title and abstract: Do they accurately represent the study and summarize key points?
  • Methods: Are they appropriate, clearly described, and reproducible?
  • Results and discussion: Are the findings consistent with the data and well interpreted in relation to the literature?
  • Scope fit: Does the manuscript align with the journal’s aims and scope?
  • Writing and presentation: Is the language clear and are tables/figures understandable?

6. Writing Review Comments

Comments to the Author: This section is visible to authors. Keep your tone respectful and constructive. Provide specific, actionable recommendations whenever possible.

Comments to the Editor: This section is visible only to the editor and may include policy concerns, ethical suspicions, or process-related notes.

7. Uploading Annotated Files (Very Important)

If you make comments, tracked changes, or annotations directly on the manuscript file, you must upload the annotated file back to the system. If the file is not uploaded, editors and authors will not see your annotated feedback.

8. Recommendation

At the end of the review, you will be asked to select a recommendation. Options vary by journal. Ensure your recommendation matches your written comments (e.g., if revisions are required, list the required changes clearly).

9. Timeline and Time Management

The review deadline is usually stated in the invitation email and displayed on the submission page. Meeting deadlines is important because delays can extend the author’s publication process and disrupt the editor’s workflow and issue planning.

Reviewers are encouraged to complete the review before the last day whenever possible. If you realize you cannot meet the deadline:

  • Inform the editor as soon as possible,
  • Request an extension if appropriate,
  • If an extension is not possible, consider declining the review and suggesting an alternative reviewer.

10. Ethics and Confidentiality

  • Confidentiality: Manuscript content is confidential. Do not share or discuss it with others.
  • Conflict of interest: Report any conflict and do not proceed with the review.
  • Ethical concerns: Suspected plagiarism, data fabrication/manipulation, or ethics approval issues should be reported directly to the editor (not to the authors).

11. Conclusion

Peer review is a responsibility to uphold and improve scholarly quality. Ethical, timely, and constructive reviews strengthen manuscripts, support editors, and increase the journal’s credibility.

Reviewer Checklist

The following checklist is recommended to be reviewed before submitting your peer review report.

  • Expertise Match: Does the manuscript fall within my area of expertise?
  • Availability: Am I able to complete the review within the specified timeframe?
  • Conflict of Interest: Do I have any personal, institutional, or financial conflict of interest related to the authors or the study?
  • Review Acceptance: Have I formally accepted the review request in the system?
  • File Access: Have I successfully downloaded and reviewed the manuscript and any supplementary files?
  • Scientific Evaluation: Have I evaluated originality, methodology, results, discussion, and relevance to the journal’s scope?
  • Comments to Authors: Have I provided constructive, clear, and actionable feedback, including both strengths and areas for improvement?
  • Comments to the Editor: Have I added confidential notes to the editor where necessary (e.g., ethical concerns or policy issues)?
  • Annotated File Upload: If I made comments, annotations, or tracked changes on the manuscript file, have I uploaded the annotated file to the system?
  • Recommendation Consistency: Is my selected recommendation (accept, revise, reject, etc.) consistent with my written review comments?
  • Deadline Compliance: Have I submitted the review within the specified deadline? If delayed, did I inform the editor in advance?
  • Confidentiality: Have I maintained confidentiality and avoided sharing or discussing the manuscript with third parties?