Guidelines for Reviewers

Guidelines for Reviewers

Peer-Review Process

Start: Author submits a manuscript.

Editor:

  • Checks for general formatting and completeness.
  • Assigns manuscript to potential reviewers based on expertise and availability.
  • May invite additional reviewers if needed.

Reviewers:

  1. Review:
  • Assess the novelty and significance of the research.
  • Evaluate the originality and soundness of the methodology.
  • Analyze the clarity and accuracy of data and results.
  • Check for plagiarism and ethical considerations.
  1. Prepare Report:
  • Provide constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement.
  • Recommend one of three decisions: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision/Reject.
  • Submit the report confidentially to the Editor.

Editor:

  • Considers reviewer reports and makes a final decision:
  • Accept: Manuscript is published after minor formatting adjustments.
  • Minor Revision: The author addresses minor identified issues and resubmits the manuscript.
  • Major Revision/Reject: Editor informs the author of major shortcomings and may offer suggestions for improvement. The author can revise and resubmit based on feedback, or the manuscript may be rejected.

Author:

  • Responds to reviewer feedback and revise the manuscript as needed.
  • Resubmits the revised manuscript to the Editor.

End:

  • If accepted, the manuscript undergoes final editing and formatting for publication.
  • The published article is made available online and indexed in relevant databases.

Additional Notes:

  • The entire process can take several months, depending on the journal and the complexity of the review process.

 

Guide for Reviewers

Review Format: While we allow flexibility in report structure, we suggest focusing on three key decisions: Accept, Minor Revision, or Major Revision/Reject.

Declining Reviews: If unable to provide an objective evaluation due to a conflict of interest (financial stake, prior discussions with authors, etc.), please excuse yourself by politely declining the review invitation.

Detailed Feedback: Your report should be a constructive and comprehensive critique, exceeding a few superficial sentences. Aim to help authors improve their work with valuable insights and specific suggestions.

Confidentiality: Treat manuscripts with absolute secrecy. Don’t share them or discuss their content with anyone outside the review process. Consultations with colleagues require prior permission from SETS or the Editor-in-Chief, with their names mentioned in your report.

English Language: While poor English shouldn’t be the sole reason for rejection, please flag any significant language issues requiring substantial editing.

Rejection Feedback: If recommending rejection, clearly justify your decision by outlining the manuscript’s major flaws and potentially suggesting relevant published work for improvement.

Review Form: The suggested report format is readily available for download in the review form.

 

Conflicts of interest

To ensure a fair review, reviewers should step aside if:

  • They would financially gain from the work's findings.
  • They've already discussed the submission with the authors.
  • They doubt their ability to be impartial.