For Reviewers

Reviewers Guide

Reviewers’ Profile and Responsibilities

Reviewers are a critical link between journals and authors by contributing timely, objective, and professional reviews to the journals and helping authors get their work out in the world.

To apply to become a reviewer, the following requirements apply:

Have a PhD or MD degree.

Have a record of publications in the field of research for which the paper is being submitted.

Not be from the same institution as the submitting author or have co-authored a paper.

Not have a conflict of interest with the author(s)

Ensure timely response in the review process.

Maintain professional and ethical standards and produce a compliant review report.

Reviewers’ Benefits

The results of the reviewers' work will be recognized in the following ways:

Reviewers receive a reduction in APCs for submissions to IDSCI journals in the form of vouchers (vouchers can only be used in conjunction with IOAP and Affiliate Society discounts).

Reviewers will receive a reviewer certificate from us.

Reviewers have the opportunity to be promoted to the Reviewer Board (subject to the approval of the Editor-in-Chief).

Reviewers may create a profile on Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service (formerly Publons) and have their reviewing activity automatically added for participating journals. Profiles on Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service can also be integrated with ORCID.

Reviewer Board

Members of the Review Board are experienced researchers in their respective fields and are appointed for an initial term of one year (which may be renewed or terminated). In addition to the requirements for becoming a regular reviewer (see Reviewers' Profile and Responsibilities), a member reviewer is expected to review at least 6 manuscripts per year and submit review report, to nominate another review to complete the report if unable to do so. Active RB members have the opportunity to become a member of the Advisory Group and receive a certificate.

Volunteer Reviewers

Recruitment of reviewer volunteers is also a concern of us. Once you have applied to become a volunteer, you may review articles for one or more of IDSCI's journals. Eligibility is detailed in the "Reviewers' Profile and Responsibilities" section, and you can contact our Volunteer Recruitment Team here. Volunteer reviewers also have the opportunity to apply to become a member of a review board by means of assessment.

General Guidelines for Reviewers

Invitation to Review

The review process is one of the most important aspects to ensure the quality of manuscripts. Each manuscript submitted to IDSCI needs to be reviewed by at least two experts, each expert needs to decide whether to accept the invitation as soon as possible after receiving the invitation based on the title and abstract of the manuscript, and if the invitation is rejected, other reviewers who meet the requirements need to be recommended. Reviewers can be volunteer reviewers, members of the review committee, reviewers recommended by the academic editors or volunteer reviewers. After accepting the invitation, reviewers are required to evaluate the manuscript and make recommendations for acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript and to provide a full report, and to request an extension of the deadline as soon as possible.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

We have listed the following possible conflicts of interest for reviewers, but there are more than one conflict of interest, and reviewers are encouraged to contact our editorial team if they are unsure whether something constitutes a conflict of interest.

1. the reviewer has co-authored, collaborated, or had other academic affiliations with the author (not limited to the first author) within three years

2. the reviewer is related to, closely associated with, or in competition with the author(s)

3. the reviewer has a non-financial conflict of interest with the author(s) in terms of religion, culture, ideology, etc.

4. the reviewer can gain or lose financial benefits from the publication of the paper.

Reviewers are strongly advised to read the Code of Ethics for Peer Review developed by the Publication Ethics Committee.

Declaration of Confidentiality

Reviewers are obliged to maintain the confidentiality of the entire manuscript prior to publication, and in the event that the manuscript must be reviewed by another reviewer, the appointed reviewer shall also maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and shall notify the Editorial Office of any change in the reviewer for the record. Similarly, review reports shall be treated as confidential and may be made public only with the consent of the reviewers.

Review Reports

We offer the following guidelines to reviewers when issuing a review report:

Objectivity and neutrality are prerequisites for any reviewer comments.

The reviewer's comments are intended to help the author improve the quality of the manuscript and therefore the comment should be constructive.

Ensure that the comments are understandable and that the author can correctly understand the issues raised by the reviewer.

Avoid recommending citations of your own research or that of authors close to you if not necessary; reviewers may provide references for authors, but the references must significantly improve the quality of the manuscript under review.

Artificial intelligence and its aids should not be used in the review process to generate review reports

Note that MDPI journals follow several standards and guidelines, including those from the ICMJE (medical journals), CONSORT (trial reporting), TOP (data transparency and openness), PRISMA (systematic reviews and meta-analyses) and ARRIVE (reporting of in vivo experiments). See the Publishing Standards and Guidelines page or contact the Editorial Office for more details. Reviewers that are familiar with the guidelines should report any concerns they have about their implementation.

For further guidance on writing a critical review, please refer to the following documents:

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Committee on Publication Ethics. Available online.

Hames, I. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2007.

Writing a journal article review. Australian National University: Canberra, Australia, 2010. Available online.

Golash-Boza, T. How to write a peer review for an academic journal: Six steps from start to finish. Available online.

The review report should contain at least the following content:

A concise abstract and the purpose of the paper's writing and the main contributions.

General comments:

Comment on the completeness, relevance, and appropriateness of the literature, and make as detailed and specific comments as possible on the weaknesses of the article, such as inaccurate use of methods, lack of testability of hypotheses, lack of typicality in the choice of control groups, and other problems with the scientific content, to help the authors improve the quality of the article.

Specific comments:

Ambiguous expressions in the text, incorrectly written numbers, formulas, etc. Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and other problems not related to scientific content will be solved by our specialized colleagues, which should not be the focus of the reviewers.

General questions to help guide your review report for research articles:

Is the manuscript clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner?

Are the cited references mostly recent publications (within the last 5 years) and relevant? Does it include an excessive number of self-citations?

Is the manuscript scientifically sound and is the experimental design appropriate to test the hypothesis?

Are the manuscript’s results reproducible based on the details given in the methods section?

Are the figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand? Is the data interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript? Please include details regarding the statistical analysis or data acquired from specific databases.

Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?

Please evaluate the ethics statements and data availability statements to ensure they are adequate.

General questions to help guide your review report for review articles:

Is the review clear, comprehensive and of relevance to the field? Is a gap in knowledge identified?

Was a similar review published recently and, if yes, is this current review still relevant and of interest to the scientific community?

Are the cited references mostly recent publications (within the last 5 years) and relevant? Are any relevant citations omitted? Does it include an excessive number of self-citations?

Are the statements and conclusions drawn coherent and supported by the listed citations?

Are the figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand?

The content of your review report will be rated by an Academic Editor from a scientific point of view as well as general usefulness to the improvement of the manuscript. The overall grading results will be used as a reference for potential promotion of Reviewer Board Members, Volunteer Reviewers and regular Reviewers.

Rating the Manuscript

The review of manuscripts will include, but not be limited to, the following:

Scope: whether the article has been submitted to a journal that fits the scope of its Call for Papers.

English level: whether the English is appropriate, free of ambiguity and grammatically correct.

Appropriateness: Whether appropriate results have been selected to support the conclusions of the study; whether the data and analysis are appropriate; whether the conclusions have been interpreted in an appropriate manner.

Innovativeness: whether the research question is original; whether the research attempts to full gaps in its field; whether it promotes the development of the research field.

Scientific Soundness: Is the study correctly designed and technically sound? Are the analyses performed with the highest technical standards? Is the data robust enough to draw conclusions? Are the methods, tools, software, and reagents described with sufficient details to allow another researcher to reproduce the results? Is the raw data available and correct (where applicable)? Appeal: Is there broad appeal to the reader.

Overall Merit: Is there an overall benefit to publishing this work? Does the work advance the current knowledge? Do the authors address an important long-standing question with smart experiments? Do the authors present a negative result of a valid scientific hypothesis?

All manuscripts accepted by IDSCI journals should meet the highest standards of publication ethics and remain original, with in-text citations clearly identifying the source of the text. Recognized standards of research ethics must be strictly enforced in research. Any academic misconduct, plagiarism, or fraud detected by the reviewers should be immediately raised with the editorial team.

Overall Recommendation

Reviewers may make the following overall recommendations for the article after completing the review:

Accepted: the paper is accepted without any revision

Accepted with minor revisions: the paper is accepted in principle with minor revisions, which should be completed within 5 days.

Reconsideration with major revisions: the acceptance of the paper depends on the outcome of the revisions. Each manuscript is allowed a maximum of two rounds of major revisions, and authors are required to resubmit the paper within ten days, then back to the review process for a further comments. If revisions are expected to take more than two months, authors are advised to withdraw their manuscripts in order to ensure that all manuscripts are adequately revised.

Reject and encouragement to resubmit: If the article needs more experimental data to support the authors will face rejection. We encourage the authors to resubmit the article after conducting more experiments.

Reject: Articles with serious flaws will be rejected and not accepted for resubmission

All recommendations must be based on sound reasons and should be submitted in writing to the Editorial Board.

Guidelines for Reviewers for Registered Reports Papers

The review process for Registered Reports is divided into two stages. In Stage 1, reviewers assess study proposals before data is collected. In Stage 2, reviewers consider the full study, including results and interpretation.

When reviewing Stage 1 papers, note that no experimental data or results will be included. Reviewers only need to assess the method, including, for example:

The importance and soundness of the proposed hypotheses;

The suitability and feasibility of the experimental and analysis methodology;

Whether there are sufficient details given to replicate the proposed experimental procedures and analysis;

Whether there are sufficient outcome-neutral tests of the hypotheses, including positive controls and quality checks.

Manuscripts that pass Stage 1 peer review may be published immediately or after the successful completion of Stage 2 (at the authors’ discretion). Editorial decisions will not be based on the importance or novelty of the results.

For Stage 2 manuscripts, reviewers will be asked to appraise:

Whether the data was adequate to test the proposed hypotheses by satisfying the approved outcome-neutral conditions (such as quality checks, positive controls);

Whether the stated hypotheses tested was the same as the approved Stage 1 submission;

Whether the authors adhered precisely to the registered experimental procedures or were able to sufficiently justify any changes;

Whether any new analyses (not mentioned at Stage 1) are methodologically sound and relevant;

Whether the authors’ conclusions are justified given the data.