Home > Publishing Support > Reviewers

Evaluating the manuscript

Reviewing a manuscript for publication is a crucial part of the peer review process, deciding if a research paper or article meets the required standards for inclusion in a scientific or academic journal/proceeding. Here are key factors to consider during the assessment.


  • Evaluate the paper’s originality, significance, and relevance to the scope of the submitted journal.

  • Assess the methodology and experimental design to ensure that the research is conducted in a scientifically sound and ethical manner.

  • Check if the methods are appropriate and the data can sufficiently support the conclusions.

  • Check whether the author(s) provide all the relevant tables and figures supporting the research.

  • Check whether the text is written logically and easy to understand.

  • Check whether the presentation of the paper is clear and in order. Meanwhile, make sure all headings and other main contents are clearly differentiated.

  • Reviewers shall identify ethical issues like plagiarism, data fabrication, and conflicts of interest.

  • Reviewers should provide instructive suggestions/insights for authors to improve the article.

What is not to expected from Reviewers

  • Share the manuscript with their peers before publication.

  • Authorize other scholars to review the paper without permission from the journal Editorial Office.

  • Unreasonably require authors to cite their own papers.

Reviewer's Report

  • Report whether the reviewed manuscript matches the requirements and standards of publication.

  • Appreciate the author’s effort in preparing the manuscript and contributing to research area.

  • All comments should be sequentially numbered in the same page number order.

  • Revision decisions can be major [may call for re-review] or minor.

  • Major revisions: Author(s) are required to revisit the manuscript and implement the reviewer's suggested significant amendments. Normally the revised version calls for re-review. Alternatively, the author(s) should present a well-justified defense if they disagree with the reviewer's suggestions. Editor-in-Chief should be engaged to resolve the issues if both are not on the same page.

  • Minor: The suggestions may not impact the research conclusion. Few changes need to be made to improve the article further.

  • Be clear in your comments without any ambiguity.

  • All recommendations should be substantiated with evidence and references.

  • Comments must be clearly distinguished between those intended for the author(s) and those meant for the editor.

  • Editor's comments should be kept confidential and not shared with the author(s).

  • Reviewers should report if there is any ethical issue, plagiarism (that includes self-plagiarism) or data manipulated (fabrication) and if there is conflicts of interest.

  • Report if there are inappropriate and more self-citations within the manuscript.

  • Reviewer’s recommendations should be clearly mentioned to the Editor-in-Chief, whether it accepted after minor corrections or re-review is requested or rejected.

  • Rejection should have a valid explanation.



  • Reviewers are expected to complete their assessments within a reasonable. Timeframe (two-three weeks suggested), as is required by per journal.

  • Meeting deadlines is crucial to ensure the smooth progression of the peer review process.


Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the review process.

  • They should not disclose any information about the manuscript or the review to anyone without the consent of the journal or the author(s).


  • Reviewers are expected to be impartial and unbiased in their evaluations.

  • They should not allow personal biases, conflicts of interest, or preconceived notions to influence their judgment.


  • Reviewers communicate with journal editors to provide their recommendations and comments.

  • They may engage in a dialogue with the editors to clarify their assessments and address any concerns.

Continuous Improvement

  • Reviewers may receive feedback and guidance from editors to enhance their reviewing skills.

  • This feedback loop helps reviewers improve their ability to evaluate and critique manuscripts effectively.

Feedback and Critique

  • Reviewers provide constructive feedback and critique of the manuscript.

  • They identify strengths and weaknesses in the research, offer suggestions for improvement, and point out any errors or inconsistencies.

Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the quality and integrity of the scientific and academic literature. They contribute to the peer review process by helping authors improve their work to ensure only high-quality research is published, and upholding ethical standards in research and publishing.