Peer reviewers help journal editors assess whether a manuscript is accurate, relevant, clearly presented, and suitable for publication. Their comments also help authors improve their work.
The following guidance applies generally to journals published by Schola Science. Reviewers should also follow any specific instructions provided by the journal’s editorial team.
Before accepting a review
Please accept a review invitation only when:
- The manuscript is within your area of knowledge.
- You can provide an objective assessment.
- You can complete the review within the stated deadline.
- You have no conflict of interest that could affect your judgment.
You do not need to be an expert in every aspect of the manuscript. If you can assess only part of the work, inform the editor before accepting the invitation.
Please decline promptly when the manuscript is outside your expertise or when you cannot meet the deadline. A timely response helps the editor find another reviewer without delaying the authors.
Conflicts of interest
A conflict of interest may arise from personal, professional, academic, institutional, or financial relationships with the authors or their work.
Examples may include:
- Recent collaboration with an author.
- A close personal or professional relationship.
- Direct academic competition.
- Employment at the same institution.
- A financial interest connected to the research.
- Prior involvement with the manuscript.
If you are uncertain whether a relationship constitutes a conflict, explain the situation privately to the editor. The editor will decide whether the review may proceed.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, copy, discuss, or distribute the manuscript without permission from the editor.
Ideas, methods, results, and data obtained through peer review must not be used for personal research or professional advantage before publication. Reviewer identities must also be protected when the journal uses an anonymous review model.
Do not upload the manuscript or identifiable parts of it to public generative AI systems or other third-party services unless the journal has explicitly permitted their use. Such services may retain submitted material and compromise confidentiality.
How to assess a manuscript
A useful review considers both the academic content and the clarity of its presentation. Depending on the type of manuscript, reviewers may consider the following questions.
Relevance and contribution
- Does the manuscript fit the journal’s aims and scope?
- Is the research question clearly stated?
- Does the study add useful knowledge to its field?
- Is the contribution explained without exaggerated claims?
Research methods
- Are the methods appropriate for the research question?
- Is the research design explained clearly enough to be evaluated?
- Are the data collection and analysis procedures suitable?
- Are important limitations acknowledged?
- Can the conclusions be supported by the methods used?
Results and interpretation
- Are the results presented clearly and consistently?
- Do the tables and figures support the text?
- Does the discussion interpret the findings appropriately?
- Are alternative explanations considered where necessary?
- Do the conclusions follow from the reported results?
Ethics and transparency
- Does the manuscript report the required ethical approval?
- Is informed consent addressed where applicable?
- Are funding sources and conflicts of interest disclosed?
- Are data, images, and citations presented responsibly?
- Are there signs of plagiarism, fabricated data, duplicate publication, or inappropriate authorship?
Presentation and references
- Is the manuscript logically organized?
- Are technical terms explained where necessary?
- Are the references relevant and reasonably current?
- Are important publications missing?
- Can the language be understood well enough to assess the research?
Reviewers are not expected to rewrite the manuscript. Language corrections should focus on passages where unclear writing affects the meaning or interpretation of the research.
Writing the review report
Begin with a short summary of the manuscript and its main contribution. This helps the editor understand how you interpreted the work.
Organize the rest of the report into major and minor comments.
Major comments
Major comments address issues that affect the validity, interpretation, or contribution of the manuscript. These may include problems with the research question, methods, analysis, results, ethical reporting, or conclusions.
Each major comment should explain:
- What the issue is.
- Why it matters.
- What the author should clarify or revise.
Minor comments
Minor comments may cover unclear sentences, missing definitions, formatting inconsistencies, incomplete references, table labels, figure captions, or other matters that do not change the main findings.
Comments should be specific enough for the authors to act on them.
Constructive and respectful feedback
A review should evaluate the manuscript, not the authors. Use professional language and explain criticism with academic reasons.
Avoid insulting, dismissive, or personal comments. Do not require authors to cite your work unless the references are directly relevant. Reviewers should also avoid asking for unnecessary additional analysis that falls outside the manuscript’s research question.
When identifying a weakness, suggest a practical way to address it whenever possible.
Suspected research misconduct
If you notice possible plagiarism, data manipulation, duplicate publication, unethical research, or another serious concern, report it privately to the editor.
Describe the specific section or evidence that caused concern. Do not accuse the authors directly or conduct an independent investigation. The editor will assess the matter according to the journal’s publication ethics procedures.
Reviewer recommendations
Depending on the journal, reviewers may be asked to recommend one of the following:
- Accept
- Minor revision
- Major revision
- Reject and resubmit
- Reject
The recommendation should be consistent with the comments in the review report. Detailed feedback is more useful than the recommendation alone.
Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial process, but the final publication decision belongs to the journal’s authorized editor.
After submitting the review
The editor may contact you for clarification or invite you to assess a revised manuscript. When reviewing a revision, check the authors’ response and determine whether the main concerns have been addressed.
All manuscript information remains confidential after the review has been completed, including when the manuscript is rejected or withdrawn.
Schola Science appreciates the time and knowledge contributed by every reviewer. Careful and timely reviews support fair editorial decisions and help authors strengthen their research.