Guidelines to Reviewers

As a reviewer, your primary role is to provide an objective, thorough, and constructive assessment of the manuscript's quality, originality, and scientific soundness. Your feedback will help the authors improve their work and assist the editors in making an informed decision on whether to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript.

Key points to consider during the review:

  • Is the research original and innovative?
  • Are the methods appropriate, and are the data robust and reliable?
  • Are the conclusions justified by the evidence provided?
  • Is the manuscript well-organized, clear, and easy to understand?
  • Does the research comply with ethical standards?

Upon agreeing to review, you are expected to:

  • Confirm your availability and notify the editor immediately if you cannot complete the review in the specified timeframe.
  • Complete your review within the agreed deadline (typically 2-4 weeks). If you require additional time, please inform the editorial office as soon as possible.

Once assigned, you will receive:

  • The manuscript to review.
  • Any supplementary materials (if applicable).
  • A set of review criteria specific 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, except with the permission of the editorial team.
  • Ethical Standards: You must declare any conflicts of interest that might affect your ability to provide an impartial review. If you recognize the authors’ identity and believe this may influence your objectivity, inform the editor immediately.
  • Ethical Compliance: If you notice any potential ethical concerns, such as plagiarism, data manipulation, or unethical research practices, report them to the editorial office.

Structure of the Review Report

Your review report should be divided into two sections: comments for the editor and comments for the authors. Keep the comments constructive, even if you are 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 quality of the manuscript.
  • Indicate whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised (minor or major), or rejected, with clear reasons for your recommendation.
  • State if there are parts of the manuscript that you are not qualified to review or if you suggest additional reviewers.

Your comments to the authors should be constructive and aim to help improve the manuscript. Focus on:

  • Major Comments: These may include significant methodological issues, problems with data analysis, or flaws in the interpretation of the results. Explain why these issues need to be addressed and offer suggestions on how to improve them.
  • Minor Comments: These may include minor factual errors, unclear statements, inconsistencies, or typographical mistakes.
  • Clarity and Organization: Point out areas where the manuscript’s clarity, coherence, or organization could be improved.
  • References and Citations: Check whether the manuscript has appropriately referenced prior work and cited the relevant literature.

Key Aspects to Evaluate

  • Does the manuscript make a significant contribution to the field?
  • Is the research question or hypothesis novel and important?
  • Does the manuscript engage with and build upon current literature?
  • Are the methods appropriate 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? Do they overreach?
  • Is the manuscript well-written, with a logical flow of ideas?
  • Are the introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections clearly defined and structured?
  • Is the language used appropriate for the journal’s audience?
  • Has the manuscript followed ethical guidelines in conducting the research (e.g., informed consent, ethical approval)?
  • Are all conflicts of interest and funding sources disclosed?
  • Is there any indication of unethical practices such as data fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism?

Review Recommendations

At the end 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 small changes (e.g., minor clarifications, corrections to figures, or typos).
  • Major Revisions: The manuscript has potential but requires significant revisions (e.g., reanalysis of data, improvement of methods, or restructuring).
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form due to fundamental flaws or because it does not meet the journal’s standards. Provide clear reasons for rejection and, if possible, suggestions for improving the work.

Constructive Criticism and Tone

  • Be professional and respectful in your language.
  • Offer specific, actionable feedback rather than vague criticisms.
  • When recommending revisions, suggest practical ways to address issues.
  • Encourage improvement: Even when recommending rejection, provide feedback that can help the authors improve 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 a 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 based on your feedback, you may be asked to review the revised version. In this case:

  • Assess whether the authors have adequately addressed your comments and the comments of other reviewers.
  • Ensure that the revised manuscript meets the standards of the journal.
  • Provide a new recommendation based on the revised manuscript.

Recognition of Reviewers

Al-Shodhana recognizes and values the contributions of peer reviewers. Reviewers may choose to:

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

In addition, high-quality reviews may be eligible for recognition through reviewer awards or other forms of acknowledgment.