Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewers are essential to maintaining research integrity and quality at JCSR. These guidelines outline the expectations for constructive, timely, and ethical peer review across disciplines.
Maintain scientific rigor
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts for methodological rigor, clarity, and relevance to current scientific research. Reviews must be objective, evidence based, and focused on improving the manuscript.
Research Question
Clear and significant focus
Methods
Robust and reproducible design
Data
Transparency and availability
Results
Evidence supports conclusions
Clarity
Readable and well organized
Impact
Contribution to scientific field
Confidentiality: Manuscripts and data are confidential and must not be shared or used for personal benefit. Reviewers should decline reviews where conflicts exist.
Timelines: JCSR requests reviews within the agreed timeframe. If delays occur, notify the editorial office promptly to maintain an efficient review process.
Constructive Feedback: Provide specific, actionable suggestions and avoid personal criticism. Highlight strengths as well as areas for improvement.
Organize feedback for clarity
A well structured review includes a brief summary of the manuscript, major concerns, minor comments, and recommendations for improvement. Focus on methodology, data integrity, and clarity of conclusions.
Major vs minor changes
When recommending revisions, distinguish between essential changes and optional enhancements. Provide actionable guidance that helps authors address scientific issues efficiently.
Prioritize scientific rigor
Highlight methodological strengths, data limitations, and interpretation concerns. Avoid rewriting the manuscript; focus on scientific accuracy and clarity for interdisciplinary readers.
Disclose potential bias
Declare any financial or personal conflicts that could influence your assessment. If unsure, consult the editorial office before accepting the review invitation.
Professional and constructive feedback
Maintain a professional and respectful tone. Reviews should focus on evidence and methodology rather than personal opinion about the authors or institution.
Protect confidentiality
Reviewer identities are kept confidential unless explicit permission is granted. Maintain anonymity in review comments and avoid self identifying language.
Flag missing information
Highlight any concerns about data availability or reporting transparency so authors can address them directly.
Focus on science
Concentrate feedback on methodology, data integrity, and clarity rather than stylistic preferences.
