At iConclusions, we value the critical role that reviewers play in maintaining the quality and integrity of the research we publish. The following guidelines are designed to assist reviewers in providing thorough, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

1. Reviewer Responsibilities

• Objective Evaluation: Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively, based on the scientific merit of the work, its originality, and its relevance to the journal’s scope. Personal biases or conflicts of interest should be disclosed and may disqualify a reviewer from assessing a particular manuscript.
• Confidentiality: All submitted manuscripts are confidential. Reviewers must not share the manuscript or any details of the review process with anyone outside the editorial team. Reviewers should also avoid discussing the manuscript with others without explicit permission from the editor.
• Timeliness: We strive for a prompt review process. Reviewers are asked to complete their evaluations within the agreed-upon timeframe, typically [insert time frame, e.g., 2-4 weeks]. If a reviewer anticipates delays, they should inform the editor as soon as possible.
• Constructive Feedback: Reviewers should provide constructive, detailed, and specific feedback that will help authors improve their manuscript. Criticisms should be objective and supported by evidence, and personal remarks should be avoided.

2. Criteria for Evaluation

When reviewing a manuscript, consider the following criteria:

• Originality: Is the research novel? Does it contribute new knowledge or insights to the field?
• Significance: Does the study address an important question or problem? Will it have an impact on the field or practice?
• Methodology: Are the research design and methods appropriate and rigorous? Are the statistical analyses sound and properly applied?
• Clarity: Is the manuscript well-written and organized? Are the arguments coherent and logically presented?
• Results and Interpretation: Are the results clearly presented and supported by the data? Are the conclusions justified based on the evidence provided?
• Ethical Considerations: Has the study been conducted ethically? Are all necessary ethical approvals and consents mentioned?
• References: Are the references appropriate and up-to-date? Is relevant literature adequately cited?

3. Structure of the Review Report

A well-structured review report typically includes the following sections:

• Summary of the Manuscript: Provide a brief summary of the manuscript’s content, including its main contributions and findings. This demonstrates your understanding of the work.
• Major Comments: Discuss the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses. Highlight significant issues that need to be addressed, such as flaws in methodology, lack of clarity, or unsupported conclusions. Suggest specific changes or improvements.
• Minor Comments: Point out minor errors, such as typographical errors, grammatical issues, or small inaccuracies. These do not usually affect the overall quality of the manuscript but should still be corrected.
• Recommendation: Provide a clear recommendation to the editor based on your assessment. Options typically include:
  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with minor or no revisions.
  • Minor Revision: The manuscript requires some revisions, but these are not substantial.
  • Major Revision: The manuscript requires significant changes before it can be considered for publication.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication, either due to fundamental flaws or because it falls outside the scope of the journal.

4. Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest, including financial, personal, or professional relationships with the authors that could influence their review. If a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation to review.
• Plagiarism and Misconduct: If you suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, or any other form of research misconduct, please report it to the editor immediately, providing as much detail as possible.
• Respect for Authors: While providing critical feedback, reviewers should be respectful and professional. The goal is to help authors improve their work, not to discourage them.

5. Benefits of Reviewing

• Contribution to the Field: By reviewing manuscripts, you contribute to the advancement of your field and help maintain the quality of published research.
• Recognition: Reviewers are acknowledged for their contributions through certificates, recognition in the journal, and consideration for editorial roles.