Reviewer Guidelines
1. Before Accepting
Please respond to an invitation within 3 days, considering your expertise fit, availability (reviews are due within 21 days), and any conflict of interest. Decline if you know the authors, share their institution, have collaborated within three years, or have a competing or financial interest.
2. What to Assess
- Title and abstract: accurate, informative, with key quantitative results.
- Introduction: a clearly stated research gap supported by current literature, and explicit contributions.
- Novelty: what is genuinely new relative to prior work.
- Methods: sufficient detail for reproduction; appropriate datasets, parameters, validation scheme, and baselines.
- Results and discussion: supported by data and interpreted against prior work rather than restated.
- Conclusions: consistent with the evidence, with limitations and future work.
- References: relevant, current, predominantly primary sources.
- Presentation and ethics: legible figures and tables; any sign of plagiarism, duplication, or data manipulation.
3. Writing the Report
Begin with a short summary of the manuscript as you understand it, then give numbered major and minor comments referring to specific pages, lines, figures, or tables. Be constructive and address the work, not the authors. Do not require citations to your own work without scholarly justification. Send confidential concerns to the editor only.
4. Recommendations
Accept Submission · Revisions Required (minor) · Resubmit for Review (major) · Resubmit Elsewhere (out of scope) · Decline Submission.
5. Ethical Obligations
Maintain confidentiality, judge objectively, meet deadlines, comply with the generative AI policy, and delete your copy of the manuscript once the process is complete.
