Guide for Reviewers

Peer-Review Instructions

Manuscripts submitted to PADiR Journal are reviewed by at least two experts. These reviewers may be volunteer reviewers, members of the Review Board, or reviewers suggested by the Academic Editor during the preliminary screening process. Reviewers are requested to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and provide a recommendation to the handling editor as to whether the manuscript should be accepted, requires revisions, or should be rejected.

Invited reviewers are requested to:

  • Accept or decline the invitation as soon as possible, based on the manuscript title and abstract;
  • Suggest alternative reviewers if the invitation must be declined;
  • Request a deadline extension as soon as possible if additional time is required to prepare a comprehensive report.

Before accepting or declining a review invitation, please consider the following questions:

Q1) Does the article fall within your area of expertise?

Accept the invitation only if you believe you can provide a high-quality review.

Q2) Do you have a potential conflict of interest?

Disclose this to the editor when responding.

Q3) Do you have sufficient time?

Peer review may require substantial effort; before committing, please ensure that you can meet the agreed deadline.

How to Conduct Peer Review for PADiR Journal

The reviewer’s report should provide a comprehensive critique of the manuscript and should contain substantially more than a few brief sentences. PADiR Journal does not require a specific report structure; however, the suggested format is as follows:

  • Summary
  • Major issues
  • Minor issues

Reviewers are encouraged to help authors improve their manuscripts. The report should provide constructive analysis for the authors, particularly when revisions are recommended. If reviewers do not wish authors to see certain comments, these may be included in the confidential comments to the Editor-in-Chief.

Although expectations vary by discipline, some core aspects that reviewers should critique may include the following:

  • Are the research questions sound?
  • Is the sample size sufficient?
  • Has the necessary ethical approval and/or informed consent been obtained, and was the research conducted ethically?
  • Are the methods and study design appropriate for answering the research question?
  • Do the experiments include appropriate controls/control groups?
  • Is the methodology, including any equipment and materials, documented in sufficient detail to enable the research to be replicated?
  • Were statistical tests used appropriately, and were they reported correctly?
  • Are the figures and tables clear, and do they accurately represent the results?
  • Have previous studies by the authors and others been discussed, and have those findings been compared with the current results?
  • Are there any inappropriate citations, such as citations that do not support the claim being made, or excessive citations to the author’s own work?
  • Do the results support the conclusions?
  • Have the limitations of the research been acknowledged?
  • Does the abstract provide an accurate representation of the research and findings without bias or exaggeration?
  • Is the language clear and easy to understand?

To help authors receive timely reviews, reviewer reports should be submitted through the manuscript tracking system on or before the agreed deadline. Reviewers should contact PADiR Journal if they are unable to meet the deadline, so that an alternative date can be arranged.

Reviewers are encouraged to focus their reports on an objective critique of the scientific aspects of the manuscript, including the soundness of the methodology and whether the conclusions are supported by the results. Comments may also be provided on the novelty and potential impact of the work.

At the end of the review, reviewers are asked to recommend one of the following actions:

  • Accept.
  • Minor revision.
  • Major revision.
  • Reject.
  • Unable to review.

Review Reports

Some general guidelines concerning the review report are provided below for guidance.

To begin, please consider the following guidelines:

  • Read the full article as well as any supplementary materials, paying particular attention to figures, tables, data, and methodologies.
  • Your report should critically analyze the article as a whole, as well as specific sections and the main concepts presented in it.
  • Please ensure that your comments are sufficiently detailed so that authors can accurately understand and address the points raised.
  • Reviewers must not recommend citations to their own work, the work of close colleagues, another author, or the journal when such citations are not clearly necessary to improve the quality of the manuscript under review.
  • Reviewers must not recommend excessive citations to their own work (self-citations), another author’s work (courtesy/honorary citations), or articles from the journal to which the manuscript was submitted for the purpose of increasing citations to the reviewer/authors/journal. References may be suggested when necessary, but they must clearly improve the quality of the manuscript under review.
  • Please maintain a neutral tone and focus on constructive criticism that helps authors improve their work. Derogatory comments will not be permitted.

Review reports should include the following:

  • A brief summary (one short paragraph) outlining the aim of the paper, its main contributions, and its strengths.
  • General conceptual comments:
    • Research article: highlighting weaknesses, testability of the hypothesis, methodological inaccuracies, missing controls, etc.
    • Review article: commenting on the comprehensiveness of the review topic, its relevance, the identified knowledge gap, the appropriateness of references, etc.
  • These comments should focus on the scientific content of the manuscript and be specific enough to enable the authors to respond.
  • Specific comments: referring to line numbers, tables, or figures that identify inaccuracies in the text or unclear sentences. These comments should also focus on the scientific content rather than spelling, formatting, or English-language issues, as these can be addressed later by the internal editorial team.

General Questions to Guide Review Reports for Research Articles

  • Is the manuscript clear, relevant to the field, and presented in a well-structured manner?
  • Are the cited references mostly recent publications (within the last five years) and relevant? Does the manuscript include an excessive number of self-citations?
  • Is the manuscript scientifically sound, and is the experimental design appropriate for testing the hypothesis?
  • Are the manuscript’s results reproducible based on the details provided in the methodology section?
  • Are the figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate? Do they present the data correctly? Are they easy to interpret and understand? Is the data interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript? Please include details regarding statistical analysis or data obtained from specific databases.
  • Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?
  • Please evaluate the ethics statements and data availability statements to ensure that they are adequate.

General Questions to Guide Review Reports for Review Articles

  • Is the review clear, comprehensive, and relevant to the field? Has a knowledge gap been identified?
  • Has a similar review been published recently? If so, is the current review still relevant and of interest to the scientific community?
  • Are the cited references mostly recent publications (within the last five years) and relevant? Have important citations been omitted? Does the review include an excessive number of self-citations?
  • Are the statements and conclusions coherent and supported by the cited references?
  • Are the figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate? Do they present the data correctly? Are they easy to interpret and understand?

The content of your review report will be evaluated by an Academic Editor from a scientific perspective, as well as in terms of its overall usefulness in improving the manuscript. The overall evaluation results will be used as a reference for the potential promotion of Review Board members, volunteer Review Board members, and regular reviewers.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under peer review must be kept strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscripts or discuss their content with anyone outside the peer-review process.

Reviewers may, upon request, consult colleagues from their research group, provided that manuscript confidentiality is maintained. Reviewers should first contact PADiR Journal or the Editor-in-Chief and mention the name(s) of the colleague(s) in the “Comments to the Editor” section of their report.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline to review a manuscript when:

  • They have a financial interest in the subject of the work.
  • They have previously discussed the manuscript with the authors.
  • They feel unable to remain objective.

Reviewer Applications

PADiR Journal welcomes applications from scholars interested in joining its reviewer pool. The Editorial Board carefully selects reviewers for each manuscript individually, based on their academic specialization, research experience, and publication record.

To ensure that up-to-date contact information is available, individuals interested in joining are requested to register and create a user account in the journal system.

To join the reviewer board of PADiR Journal, please register.