Reviewer Guidelines for SPJ Publication

At SPJ Publication, we are committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic rigor, integrity, and fairness in our peer-review process. As a reviewer, you are integral to this process, helping to ensure the quality and relevance of the research we publish. This document outlines the expectations and responsibilities for reviewers, ensuring that each review is thorough, unbiased, and constructive.

Roles and Responsibilities of Reviewers:

1. Confidentiality: All manuscripts and related materials are confidential and should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the review process. Reviewers must not use information from manuscripts for personal or professional gain.

2. Impartial and Objective Review: Reviews must be based solely on the content and academic merit of the manuscript. Avoid any bias related to personal or professional relationships with the authors. Focus on the research’s scientific quality, relevance, originality, clarity, and methodology, rather than personal opinions or preferences.

3. Constructive Feedback: Provide detailed, constructive feedback that helps authors improve their manuscripts. Offer clear suggestions for improvement, especially when recommending revisions or rejecting the paper. When pointing out weaknesses or issues in the manuscript, be respectful and professional. Aim to help authors strengthen their work, not just criticize.

4. Timely Review: Ensure that reviews are completed within the agreed-upon time frame (typically 2-3 weeks). If, for any reason, you are unable to meet the deadline, notify the editorial office as soon as possible. If you need more time or wish to withdraw from the review process, inform the editorial office promptly so they can assign a new reviewer.

5. Assessment Criteria: Reviewers are expected to evaluate the following aspects of a manuscript:

   • Originality: Is the research original and novel? Does it offer new insights to the field?

   • Relevance: Does the manuscript align with the journal’s scope and audience?

   • Methodology: Are the methods clearly defined, valid, and appropriate for the study? Are the results reliable and reproducible?

   • Clarity and Structure: Is the manuscript well-organized, clear, and easy to follow? Are the abstract, introduction, results, discussion, and conclusion well articulated?

   • References and Literature Review: Does the manuscript cite relevant and up-to-date research? Are there any critical references missing?

   • Ethical Considerations: Is the research conducted ethically? Are there any concerns regarding plagiarism, data integrity, or conflicts of interest?

6. Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment. If you have a professional, financial, or personal relationship with the authors, or if you feel that you cannot provide an unbiased review, please decline the review invitation. If any conflicts of interest arise during the review process, immediately inform the editorial office.

7. Non-Disclosure of Manuscripts: Do not share, cite, or use information from a manuscript under review in your own research or publications. All materials are confidential during the peer-review process.

Review Process:

1. Initial Manuscript Evaluation: Upon receiving a manuscript for review, carefully assess whether the manuscript is within your area of expertise. If not, kindly decline the review request and inform the editorial office. If you agree to review, ensure that you assess the manuscript based on the above criteria. You will be asked to provide a recommendation on whether to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript.

2. Reviewer Recommendations: After reading the manuscript, you will be asked to provide one of the following recommendations:

   • Accept in Present Form: The manuscript meets all standards and is ready for publication with no changes required.

   • Accept after Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor revisions that should be completed within a short timeframe (usually 5-7 days).

   • Reconsider after Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial revisions before it can be reconsidered for publication. This may involve additional rounds of review.

   • Reject and Encourage Resubmission: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards but could be improved and resubmitted after significant revisions.

   • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards and should not be resubmitted.

3. Feedback to Authors: Provide clear and constructive feedback that helps the authors understand the reasoning behind your recommendations. This should include both positive comments and suggestions for improvement. Avoid personal or emotional language, and focus on academic critique. Highlight the strengths of the manuscript as well as areas for improvement.

4. Revisions and Follow-up: After the authors have made revisions, you may be asked to review the manuscript again. Ensure that the revisions have been made appropriately and that the manuscript has improved based on the initial feedback.

5. Ethical and Legal Responsibilities: Ensure that any concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other ethical violations are reported to the editorial office. If you suspect that the manuscript may have been submitted elsewhere, inform the editorial office.

Conflict of Interest: If you have any financial, personal, or professional conflicts with the authors, you must disclose this to the editorial office and withdraw from the review process. If you are unsure whether a conflict of interest exists, it is better to err on the side of caution and disclose it to the editorial team.

Final Decision Making: While the peer-reviewer’s recommendation is important, the final decision on publication lies with the journal’s editorial team. Editors will take reviewer comments into consideration before making a final decision.