Reviewer Guidelines

Peer reviewers are essential to the integrity and quality of scientific publishing at Scribeia. Each review helps ensure that published work meets our standards of originality, rigor, and ethical conduct. This guide provides detailed instructions for completing a structured review that assists both authors and editors in improving the manuscript.

Purpose of the Review

The goal of peer review is to provide an impartial, evidence-based evaluation of the manuscript’s quality and contribution. Reviewers act as both critics and mentors—helping authors refine their research while guiding editors toward an informed decision. Reviews should be clear, respectful, and supported by reasoning and evidence.

Structure of the Review

Scribeia uses a structured review form to ensure consistency, fairness, and clarity. Reviewers are asked to rate key evaluation criteria, provide an overall recommendation, and include narrative comments organized into four sections: Summary, Major Comments, Minor Comments, and Confidential Comments to the Editor.

Reviewer Ratings

For each of the following criteria, reviewers should assign a numerical rating using the provided scale and support it with brief justification. Ratings help editors assess the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript at a glance.

  • Originality (1–5): Does the manuscript offer new insights, data, or methods? Does it advance knowledge in a meaningful way?
  • Scientific Rigor (1–5): Are the methods sound, reproducible, and appropriate to the research question? Are results presented with sufficient evidence?
  • Clarity and Organization (1–5): Is the writing clear, logical, and easy to follow? Are figures, tables, and data representations accurate and understandable?
  • Ethical Compliance (1–5): Does the study meet ethical standards for research, authorship, and data use?
  • Relevance and Impact (1–5): Does the work align with the journal’s scope and contribute to the advancement of the field?

Each rating should be supported with short commentary to justify the score and provide actionable feedback to the author.

Final Recommendation

Based on the reviewer’s evaluation, one of the following recommendations should be selected:

  • Accept: The manuscript meets the publication standards with only minor adjustments required.
  • Minor Revision: The manuscript is sound but needs small improvements in clarity, data presentation, or style.
  • Major Revision: Substantial revisions are necessary before the manuscript can be reconsidered for publication.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s scientific, ethical, or relevance criteria.

Review Report Template

Reviewers must submit the given form (in the following format) when preparing their reports. This format ensures that both authors and editors receive clear, organized, and actionable feedback.

  • Reviewer’s Rating Summary:
    • Originality: [Score 1–5]
    • Scientific Rigor: [Score 1–5]
    • Clarity and Organization: [Score 1–5]
    • Ethical Compliance: [Score 1–5]
    • Relevance and Impact: [Score 1–5]
    • Final Recommendation: [Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject]
  • Summary:

    Briefly describe the paper’s main contributions in your own words. This helps editors ensure that you understood the manuscript correctly. Summarize the purpose, methodology, results, and significance without repeating the abstract. Identify what you believe to be the paper’s core strength or novelty.

  • Major Comments:

    Discuss critical scientific or methodological issues that must be addressed before publication. Provide detailed reasoning, identify specific sections that require revision, and include suggestions for improvement. When possible, propose clear actions the authors can take to strengthen their study.

  • Minor Comments:

    Note smaller issues such as grammatical errors, unclear figures, inconsistencies in terminology, or formatting problems. These comments should help the authors refine presentation and readability.

  • Confidential Comments to the Editor:

    Offer insights that may assist editorial decision-making (e.g., ethical concerns, novelty, overlap with other work, or concerns about authorship). These comments are visible only to the editorial team and will not be shared with authors unless appropriate.

Confidentiality and Ethics

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents. They should not share, copy, or discuss the manuscript with others or use any part of its content for personal gain. Any suspected plagiarism, data manipulation, or ethical irregularity should be reported privately to the editor.

Timeliness and Professionalism

Reviewers should respond to review invitations promptly and complete their evaluations within the designated time, typically within three to four weeks. Reviews should be constructive, unbiased, and respectful, focusing on how the work can be improved rather than simply critiqued.

Use of Artificial Intelligence

AI-assisted tools may be used responsibly for minor editorial tasks such as grammar checks or summarization, but not for generating review content or making evaluative judgments. Reviewers remain fully accountable for the accuracy and tone of their reports.

Recognition and Reviewer Development

Scribeia values the expertise and commitment of its reviewers. Outstanding reviewers may be acknowledged annually (with consent) for their contributions. Reviewers are also encouraged to provide feedback on the review process and participate in professional development opportunities offered by Scribeia.

Closing Statement

Ethical and constructive reviewing strengthens the scientific record and supports authors in producing their best work. By following these guidelines, reviewers help maintain Scribeia’s commitment to transparency, inclusivity, and academic excellence.

Contact

For questions regarding these policies or ethical concerns, contact:
Editorial Office, Scribeia Publishing
Email: editorial@scribeia.com