Guide for Reviewers

Peer review is fundamental to the scientific integrity, credibility, and scholarly impact of Scientific Research Review (SRR). This guide outlines the responsibilities, ethical obligations, and evaluation standards for reviewers participating in the journal’s double-blind peer review process.

SRR adheres to internationally recognized principles of research integrity and editorial transparency consistent with Scopus and Web of Science indexing standards.

1. Role of the Reviewer

Reviewers play a central role in:

  • Safeguarding scientific rigor and methodological quality

  • Evaluating originality and technical contribution

  • Assessing reproducibility and analytical validity

  • Improving clarity, precision, and structure of manuscripts

  • Supporting fair and evidence-based editorial decisions

The primary objective of peer review is to strengthen the scientific quality of research, regardless of the final editorial outcome.

2. Peer Review Model

SRR operates a double-blind peer review system:

  • Reviewer identities are concealed from authors

  • Author identities are concealed from reviewers

  • Manuscripts are treated as strictly confidential documents

All reviews must be conducted objectively and independently.

3. Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Reviewers should accept invitations only if:

  • The manuscript falls within their area of recognized expertise

  • They can complete the review within the requested timeframe (typically 2–3 weeks)

  • No conflict of interest exists

Conflicts of interest include:

  • Recent collaboration (within the last five years) with the author(s)

  • Institutional affiliation overlap

  • Financial, professional, or personal relationships that may influence impartiality

  • Direct academic competition

If a conflict exists, reviewers must decline the invitation and, where appropriate, suggest alternative qualified reviewers.

4. Confidentiality and Data Protection

Reviewers must:

  • Treat all manuscripts and supplementary materials as confidential

  • Not share, distribute, or discuss content with third parties

  • Not use unpublished data or findings for personal research

  • Not retain manuscript copies after the review process

Manuscripts must not be uploaded to artificial intelligence platforms or external systems that compromise confidentiality.

Confidentiality obligations remain in effect indefinitely.

5. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, evidence-based evaluations

  • Avoid discriminatory, personal, or dismissive remarks

  • Identify potential ethical concerns, including:

    • Plagiarism

    • Data fabrication or falsification

    • Image manipulation

    • Citation manipulation

    • Undisclosed conflicts of interest

Suspected misconduct must be reported confidentially to the handling editor.

SRR aligns with COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

6. Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

To preserve confidentiality and intellectual integrity:

Reviewers must not:

  • Upload manuscripts to AI systems

  • Use generative AI tools to draft or generate review reports

  • Allow automated systems to evaluate confidential content

Reviewers may:

  • Use personal reference management software

  • Rely on plagiarism detection tools if provided by the journal

  • Apply their independent scholarly judgment

Peer review must remain a human intellectual assessment.

7. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts according to scientific and technical standards.

7.1 Relevance and Scope

  • Does the manuscript align with SRR’s scientific and engineering focus?

  • Is the research topic appropriate for an interdisciplinary scientific journal?

7.2 Originality and Scientific Contribution

  • Does the study present novel theoretical, computational, or experimental findings?

  • Is the contribution clearly articulated and positioned within existing literature?

  • Does the manuscript advance knowledge beyond incremental development?

7.3 Theoretical and Mathematical Rigor

  • Are models or theoretical frameworks clearly derived and justified?

  • Are assumptions explicitly stated?

  • Are equations correctly formulated and internally consistent?

7.4 Methodology and Reproducibility

  • Is the research design appropriate and technically sound?

  • Are experimental or computational procedures clearly described?

  • Are datasets adequately documented?

  • Is sufficient information provided to allow replication?

  • Are statistical analyses robust and correctly interpreted?

For computational studies:

  • Are algorithms clearly described?

  • Is complexity or validation analysis provided?

7.5 Results and Interpretation

  • Are results presented clearly and logically?

  • Do figures and tables support the conclusions?

  • Are interpretations supported by evidence?

  • Are limitations acknowledged appropriately?

7.6 Clarity and Technical Presentation

  • Is the manuscript logically structured?

  • Is LaTeX formatting correct and professional?

  • Are figures and mathematical expressions properly formatted?

  • Is terminology used consistently?

8. Structure of the Review Report

Reviewers are encouraged to organize reports as follows:

A. Summary

Brief summary of the manuscript’s objective, methods, and primary contribution.

B. Major Comments

Substantive issues related to:

  • Theoretical foundation

  • Model formulation

  • Methodology

  • Statistical or computational validity

  • Scientific contribution

  • Reproducibility

Major comments should clearly explain why revisions are necessary.

C. Minor Comments

Suggestions related to:

  • Clarity of writing

  • Organization

  • Terminology

  • Formatting issues

  • Additional citations

Comments should be specific, constructive, and actionable.

9. Recommendation Categories

Reviewers must select one recommendation:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

The recommendation must align with the written evaluation.

A recommendation of rejection should include clear scientific reasoning.

10. Tone and Professional Conduct

Reviews must be:

  • Constructive

  • Respectful

  • Focused on the work, not the author

  • Balanced in identifying both strengths and weaknesses

Even when recommending rejection, feedback should help authors improve their research.

Unprofessional or biased reviews may be disregarded.

11. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Submit reviews within the agreed timeframe

  • Notify the editor immediately if delays arise

Timely peer review is essential for maintaining publication standards and indexing credibility.

12. Post-Review Conduct

After submission of a review:

  • Reviewers must not contact authors directly

  • Manuscript content must not be discussed publicly

  • Confidentiality must be maintained permanently

13. Reviewer Recognition

SRR acknowledges reviewer contributions through:

  • Annual reviewer acknowledgement (with consent)

  • Certificates of recognition upon request

  • Consideration for Editorial Board appointment based on performance

Reviewer performance may be evaluated based on:

  • Quality and depth of reports

  • Timeliness

  • Professional conduct

14. Compliance and Accountability

Reviewers for SRR are expected to comply with:

  • COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

  • Journal-specific policies

  • International standards of scientific integrity

Failure to adhere to these standards may result in removal from the reviewer database.