Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewer Guidelines – JournalStack
Ethical expectations, review structure, responsibilities, and best practices for reviewers.
Introduction
These Reviewer Guidelines provide instructions and ethical expectations for evaluating manuscripts submitted to JournalStack. All reviewers must follow COPE ethical guidelines, maintain confidentiality, and provide constructive, unbiased, and timely reviews.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
- Conduct fair, objective, and thorough evaluations of manuscripts.
- Maintain confidentiality and do not share manuscript content.
- Provide constructive feedback to improve manuscript quality.
- Avoid personal criticism; assess only scientific merit.
- Identify missing citations, unclear claims, or ethical issues.
- Declare conflicts of interest before accepting a review.
- Complete reviews within 2–3 weeks unless otherwise agreed.
Review Criteria
Reviewers should evaluate based on:
- Originality and relevance of the research
- Clear contribution and objectives
- Research methodology and rigor
- Quality and correctness of results
- Strength of discussion and interpretation
- Adequacy of references and related work
- Ethical compliance (human/animal studies if applicable)
- Organization, clarity, and readability
Confidentiality
- Treat manuscripts as confidential documents.
- Do not copy, store, forward, or share manuscript files.
- Do not use manuscript content for personal research.
- Request editor approval before involving another expert.
Conflict of Interest
- Personal or professional relationship with the authors
- Recent collaboration with authors
- Financial interest that may influence decision
- Competitive, academic, or personal bias
Ethical Concerns to Report
- Plagiarism or similarity with published works
- Fabricated or manipulated data
- Duplicate or redundant submission
- Ethical issues in human or animal studies
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest
Structure of the Review Report
- Summary of the manuscript
- Strengths of the work
- Weaknesses and required improvements
- Comments on methodology, results, and clarity
- Confidential comments to the editor (optional)
- Final recommendation: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject
Review Timeline
- Standard review timeline: 2–3 weeks
- Inform the editor immediately if delays occur
- Decline the review promptly if unable to complete on time
Recognition & Benefits
- Eligible for certificates of reviewing service
- Recognition through Publons / ResearchGate (if requested)
- Reviewers contribute to scientific quality and credibility
Contact Information
For reviewer queries or assistance:
Email: review@journalstack.com
Website: www.journalstack.com
Thank You for Supporting Peer Review
Your expert evaluation helps ensure the quality and integrity of JournalStack publications.