Review Guidelines for Journals under Scientific Archives LLC
A) On receipt of the manuscript, you the reviewer should do three things immediately. 1) Read the editor's transmittal letter and determine whether you can complete the review in the stated time period, usually 2 weeks. 2) Double-check whether you can judge a given article impartially. 3) Quickly skim the relevant portions of the abstract and verify that it fits within the scope of the journal. If you have either a time problem or a conflict of interest, contact the editor for instructions. He/She may extend your deadline or ask for you to provide the names and addresses of other reviewers who are competent to handle the subject matter.
B) The manuscript sent to you for review is a privileged document. Please protect it from any form of exploitation. You may not cite a manuscript or refer to the work it describes before it has been published and do not use the information that it contains for the advancement of your own research or in discussions with colleagues. Do not give the manuscript to a colleague to review without the editor's permission. If your cursory examination reveals that the manuscript does not fit within the scope of the journal, contact the editor for instructions. Do not discuss the paper with its authors either during or after the review process. Although it may seem natural and reasonable to discuss points of difficulty or disagreement directly with an author, especially if you are generally in favor of publication and do not mind revealing your identity, this practice is prohibited because the other reviewer and the editor may have different opinions, and the author may be misled by having "cleared things up" with the reviewer who contacted him/her directly.
C) In your review please consider the questions below. However, you do not need to restrict your comments to these points. We are interested in your own comprehensive assessment of the manuscript.
There is a space for "Comments to the Editor" and a space for "Comments to the Author." The latter are the most useful as this is what is shared with the author.
- Does the manuscript fit within the scope of the journal?
- What is the main topic or argument of this manuscript and what important questions does it address? Are the findings significant within the field? Do the data/evidence presented adequately support the manuscript's claims?
- Does the manuscript adequately cite and engage with scholarship in the filed and related disciplines?
- Is the manuscript coherently organized and well-written?
D) You may choose to address the above questions by organizing your typed review so that an introductory paragraph summarizes the major findings of the article, gives your overall impression of the paper, and highlights the major shortcomings. This paragraph should be followed by specific, numbered comments, which, if appropriate, may be subdivided into major and minor points. (The numbering facilitates both the editor's letter to the author and evaluation of the author's rebuttal.)
Criticism should be presented dispassionately; offensive remarks are not acceptable. Confidential remarks directed to the editor should be typed in the appropriate review section. In your comments intended for the author, do not make statements about the acceptability of a paper; suggested revisions should be stated as such and not expressed as conditions of acceptance. The final decision regarding modification, acceptance, or rejection of a manuscript rests solely with the editor, so do not state your recommendation in the portion of the review that will be sent to the author. Instead, please select your recommendation in the column for reviewers.
After completing your review, transmit your comments via email to the editor. It is recommended that you make a copy of the review for your files. The manuscript may be returned to you for a second review, particularly if the requested modification was extensive. In addition, if the manuscript is resubmitted after rejection, the new version may be sent to you for review. In either case, you will need to evaluate the author's responses to your original criticisms.