Information for Reviewers

1. Benefits of Reviewers

Peer reviewers play a fundamental role in maintaining the quality and integrity of the peer-review process. Through their expert and constructive evaluations, reviewers help authors improve the scientific rigor, clarity, and overall quality of their manuscripts. At the same time, the review process enables reviewers to stay up to date with the latest research developments in their field.

The journal gratefully recognizes the valuable contributions of its reviewers. The following benefits are provided:

  • An official reviewer certificate is available upon request.
  • Reviewers are acknowledged annually in the journal’s published “List of Reviewers.”
  • Review activities can be recorded and verified through platforms such as Publons (Web of Science Reviewer Recognition), allowing reviewers to gain academic credit for their contributions.

 

2. Peer Review Model

All manuscripts accepted by the journal would undergo rigorous and thorough Double-blind peer review, which means that reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout. For more details about review process, please refer to Peer Review Process.

 

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide an objective, constructive, and timely evaluation of assigned manuscripts
  • Maintain confidentiality of all manuscript materials and not use unpublished information for personal advantage
  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review invitation
  • Assess manuscripts based on scientific merit, originality, methodology, clarity, and relevance
  • Provide clear, evidence-based comments to help authors improve their work
  • Avoid personal criticism and maintain a professional tone in all communications
  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe

 

4. Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to uphold high ethical standards in line with COPE guidelines, ensuring fairness, confidentiality, and integrity throughout the peer-review process.

 

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment, including personal, financial, professional, intellectual, political, or religious relationships with the authors or the work.

Reviewers should decline invitations if a conflict exists, including situations where the manuscript is closely related to their current or ongoing research, or where they have a competitive interest in the work.

 

Confidentiality

All manuscripts must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share or discuss manuscript content with others without editorial permission, nor use any information obtained through peer review for personal advantage.

Reviewers must not reveal their identity to authors in any form, including within review comments or file metadata.

 

Use of AI Tools

Reviewers are not permitted to use AI tools or generative AI systems to write, generate, or substantially assist in the preparation of peer-review reports, due to confidentiality and data protection concerns. Any review must be completed independently by the assigned reviewer.

 

Report Misconduct

Reviewers should promptly inform the editorial office if they suspect any form of research or publication misconduct, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, or ethical breaches. Investigations are handled by the journal; reviewers should not conduct independent inquiries unless requested.

 

Unbiased Evaluation

Reviews must be objective, fair, and based solely on academic merit. Personal characteristics of authors, such as nationality, gender, religion, or institutional affiliation, must not influence the evaluation. All comments should remain professional and constructive.

 

5. Review Reports

 

Review reports are a key component of the peer-review process. Reviewers are expected to provide clear, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations that support editorial decision-making and help authors improve their manuscripts.

 

Please consider the following guidelines when preparing your review:

  • Read the full manuscript carefully, including all figures, tables, data, references, and any supplementary materials.
  • Provide a balanced evaluation of the entire article, while also addressing specific sections such as the introduction, methodology, results, and discussion.
  • Ensure that comments are sufficiently detailed, specific, and actionable so that authors can clearly understand and respond to each point raised.
  • Clearly distinguish between major issues (e.g., methodology, validity of results) and minor issues (e.g., clarity, formatting, language).

 

Reviewers should maintain high standards of scholarly integrity and avoid any form of citation manipulation:

  • Do not recommend citations to your own work, that of close colleagues, or any other publications unless they are genuinely necessary to improve the manuscript.
  • Avoid suggesting excessive self-citation, honorary citation, or irrelevant citation of articles from any specific journal for the purpose of increasing citation counts.
  • Any recommended references must be academically relevant and contribute meaningfully to the quality and rigor of the manuscript.

 

Reviewers are expected to maintain a professional and neutral tone throughout the evaluation:

  • Provide constructive and respectful feedback focused on scientific content rather than the authors personally.
  • Derogatory, discriminatory, or unprofessional remarks are strictly unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
  • Comments should aim to improve the manuscript rather than criticize the authors.

 

6. Becoming a Reviewer

Researchers interested in joining the reviewer board are welcome to apply. Candidates should:

  • Hold a PhD or equivalent research experience
  • Have a strong publication record in relevant fields
  • Demonstrate expertise aligned with the journal scope

Interested applicants should contact the Editorial Office at ssi@ukscip.com and submit your CV along with your research interests and areas of expertise.