Home Authors Reviewer Guidelines
Peer Reviewer Manual

Reviewer Guidelines & Best Practices

Essential principles, evaluation standards, and constructive reporting guidelines for peer reviewers contributing to NIJES.

COPE Ethical Code Reviewer Recognition 14-Day Review Cycle

Core Reviewer Responsibilities

Guiding principles for objective academic evaluation

Peer review is the foundational cornerstone of scientific credibility. When evaluating a manuscript for NIJES, reviewers agree to adhere to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers:

Strict Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. They must never be shared, discussed, or used for personal advantage.

Conflict of Interest

Decline review immediately if you have close collaboration, institutional affiliation, or financial rivalry with suspected authors.

Timely Turnaround

Submit reports within the requested 14-day window. Promptly notify editors if an extension is required.

Constructive Tone

Provide courteous, evidence-based critique that helps authors improve their work, regardless of recommendation.

Report Structure & Recommendation

How to structure your peer review report

Your review report submitted to the Editorial Board should be organized into:

  1. Summary & Contribution: Brief synopsis of the paper's thesis and notable findings.
  2. Major Concerns: Flaws in experimental design, mathematical errors, insufficient data, or literature gaps that must be corrected.
  3. Minor Inquiries: Typographical errors, unclear labeling, figure legibility, and citation formatting.
  4. Confidential Editorial Recommendation: Accept without revision, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject.