REVIEWER GUIDELINES
Reviewers play an essential role in the peer-review process with the aim to maintain the integrity and quality of our journal. They should be aware of the journal’s scope, policies and procedures, and they should provide feedback that is constructive and helpful to authors.
When evaluating a manuscript, peer reviewers should address several key questions to ensure that the manuscript meets the standards of Sustainable Bioorganic Chemistry (SBOC) and makes a meaningful contribution to the field, maintain standards of professionalism and adhering to the COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
The primary responsibility of a reviewer is to provide an unbiased evaluation of the manuscript to the editor of the journal. The following are some of the key responsibilities of reviewers:
Feedback
Reviewers should provide feedback that is clear, specific, unbiased and constructive of the manuscript assigned to them, assessing the quality and originality of the research, and suggesting improvements where appropriate. They should evaluate the manuscript based on its scientific merit, including the quality of the research design, data analysis, and interpretation of results. They should also highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and provide a recommendation for publication based on their evaluation.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should declare any conflicts of interest that may affect their ability to provide an objective evaluation of the manuscript.
Ethical Standards
Reviewers should ensure that the manuscript adheres to ethical standards and guidelines, including the use of human or animal subjects, data integrity, authorship, plagiarism and conflicts of interest.
Authorship and Attribution
Reviewers should ensure that the authors have properly acknowledged the contributions of others and that they have provided appropriate references and citations to previous research.
Confidentiality
Reviewers should maintain open communication with the editor and respond promptly to any queries or requests for clarification.
Communication
Reviewers should maintain open communication with the editor and respond promptly to any queries or requests for clarification.
Timeliness
Reviewers should complete the review process within the agreed-upon timeframe and communicate any delays to the editor promptly.
Rating Standards of Peer Review
The following points are intended to provide an insight of what reviewers should consider in their evaluation of a manuscript:
Novelty
֎ Does the research question represent a new and original contribution to the field?
֎ Does the paper clearly articulate the novelty of the research and explain how it differs from existing studies?
֎ Are the methods and techniques used in the study novel and innovative?
֎ Are the results of the study unexpected or surprising, or do they confirm existing knowledge in the field?
֎ Does the study challenge or contradict existing theories or ideas?
֎ Have the authors cited and discussed relevant literature that supports the novelty of their research?
֎ Are there any ethical concerns related to the novelty of the research, such as the use of novel techniques or the potential for unexpected results?
Significance & Impact
֎ Does the research address an important problem or question in the field, and is the significance of this problem clearly articulated in the paper?
֎ Will the results of the study have practical implications or advance theoretical understanding in the field?
֎ Does the manuscript provide new insights into a particular area of study, or does it present new findings that have not been previously reported?
֎ Are the results of the manuscript robust and reliable, and do they have the potential to be replicated in future research?
Does the manuscript contribute to interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary approaches to the field?
֎ Does the manuscript have the potential to be widely cited and influential in the field?
Scientific Soundness
֎ Are the research questions clearly stated, and is the research design appropriate for answering these questions?
֎ Are the methods used in the study appropriate, and are they described in sufficient detail to allow for replication?
֎ Are the conclusions drawn from the study supported by the data, and do they align with the research questions?
֎ Are any limitations or potential sources of bias in the study identified and discussed in the paper?
֎ Are any potential conflicts of interest identified and discussed in the paper?
֎ Are there any major flaws or weaknesses in the manuscript?
Clarity of Presentation
֎ Is the manuscript well-organized, with clear headings and subheadings that guide the reader through the content?
֎ Are the key concepts and findings of the research clearly and concisely communicated in the abstract?
֎ Is the introduction clear and informative, providing sufficient background information and outlining the research questions and objectives?
֎ Are the methods used in the study described in sufficient detail to allow for replication?
֎ Are the results of the study presented in a clear and organized manner, using appropriate tables and figures to supplement the text?
֎ Are the conclusions drawn from the study clearly stated and supported by the data, and do they align with the research questions?
֎ Are any necessary citations provided to support the claims made in the paper?
֎ Is the overall style of the paper engaging and appropriate for a scientific publication?
Language
֎ Is the language clear, concise, easily comprehensible and appropriate for a scientific paper?
֎ Are acronyms, abbreviations and technical terminology explained or defined when first used in the paper, and are they used consistently throughout the text?
֎ Is the manuscript free from grammatical errors, typographical errors, and other writing mistakes?
֎ Is the paper free from unnecessary complexity or overly technical language that may hinder understanding by readers who are not experts in the field?
֎ Is the language used in the paper clear and concise, and is technical terminology explained or defined when necessary?
Ethical concerns
֎ Are there any ethical concerns related to the research, and have they been adequately addressed?
Review Report
It is important for the review report to be detailed, constructive, and objective, providing clear and actionable feedback that can help the editors take a decision as well as the authors improve the manuscript and enhance its chances of publication. Some of the essential components that should be included in a review report are:
A brief summary
of the manuscript and its key findings, to demonstrate that the reviewer has understood the content of the paper.
An assessment
of the novelty, significance, and scientific soundness of the research, along with any strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
Specific comments
on the clarity of presentation and language, to ensure that the paper is understandable and suitable for publication.
Suggestions
for improvements or revisions, including specific recommendations for changes to the content, structure, or language of the manuscript.
The review report may also include more detailed comments and feedback on specific aspects of the manuscript, such as the methods used, the analysis of data, the interpretation of results, or rewriting sections, or widening of the literature review.
A recommendation
regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication, based on the reviewer’s overall assessment of its quality and contribution to the field. The reviewer should provide one of the following recommendations.
֎ Accept as is: the manuscript meets the standards for publication in its current form, without requiring any revisions.
֎ Major revisions: the manuscript requires require substantial revisions to address, such as significant gaps in the methodology, inadequate data analysis, weaknesses in the interpretation of results, insufficient literature review, lack of clarity in the presentation or incomplete or inconsistent results.
֎ Reject and resubmit: the manuscript has the potential to be of high quality, but requires significant revisions that cannot be addressed in the current submission. The reviewer recommends that the authors revise the manuscript and resubmit it for further review.
֎ Reject: the manuscript does not meet the standards for publication, either due to significant flaws in scientific soundness, lack of originality, or inadequate contribution to the field.
