Reviewer Guidelines

Introduction

TISJ is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing by adhering to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. The role of peer reviewers is central to ensuring the integrity, quality, and relevance of the research we publish. As a reviewer for our journal, you are expected to uphold these ethical standards, offering a fair and unbiased evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

General Responsibilities of Reviewers

As a peer reviewer, you are tasked with evaluating manuscripts in an unbiased, confidential, and constructive manner. Your review will contribute significantly to the editorial decision-making process and help ensure the journal publishes only the highest quality and ethically sound research. Key responsibilities include:

• Impartial Evaluation: Provide an unbiased and objective assessment of the manuscript, without letting personal or professional biases influence your review.

• Constructive Feedback: Offer constructive comments to help authors improve their work. Ensure that your feedback is respectful and focused on the manuscript’s academic content, clarity, and structure.

• Confidentiality: Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process. Do not disclose any details of the manuscript to others or use the information for personal gain.

• Timeliness: Complete your review within the timeframe set by the journal. If you are unable to meet the deadline or need an extension, inform the editorial office as soon as possible.

• Non-Conflict of Interest: Ensure that you have no conflicts of interest related to the manuscript. If you have any potential conflicts, disclose them to the editorial team immediately and recuse yourself from reviewing the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

As a reviewer, it is essential to be free from any conflicts of interest that could undermine the integrity of your review. A conflict of interest may include, but is not limited to:

• Personal relationships: You have a personal connection with any of the authors (e.g., familial or close personal relationships).

• Professional rivalry: You are in direct competition with the authors in terms of research or funding.

• Financial interests: You stand to gain financially from the publication or rejection of the article (e.g., through funding or commercial interests).

• Academic interests: You have significant academic disputes or disagreements with the authors.

If any conflict of interest exists, or if you are uncertain whether a conflict of interest exists, you must notify the editorial office and withdraw from the review process for the manuscript in question.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

Originality and Significance

Assess the originality and relevance of the research. Does the manuscript present new knowledge, methods, or perspectives that contribute significantly to the field?

Clarity and Structure

Evaluate the clarity of the manuscript, including whether the writing is clear, concise, and logically organized. Does the manuscript effectively communicate its purpose, methods, results, and conclusions?

Methodology

Assess the research methodology, including the design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Are the methods appropriate and rigorous? Are the results valid, and is the analysis conducted properly?

Relevance of Literature

Ensure that the authors have reviewed relevant literature and contextualized their findings within the broader field. Are there any significant gaps in the literature review or references?

Data and Results

Evaluate the quality and integrity of the data and results presented. Are the results reproducible, and are the data presented transparently and in sufficient detail to support the conclusions?

Ethical Considerations

Ensure that ethical standards have been followed, particularly when involving human participants, animals, or sensitive data. Is informed consent documented? Has the study been approved by an appropriate ethical review board?

References and Citations

Review the completeness and accuracy of the references. Are the citations relevant, current, and properly formatted? Are any important references omitted?

Overall Contribution to the Field

Does the manuscript make a substantial contribution to the field? Does it advance knowledge or offer significant insights? Does it address a clear research question or problem?

Constructive and Objective Feedback

Tone

The tone of your review should be respectful and professional. Focus on constructive criticism that will help the authors improve the manuscript. Avoid harsh or personal language.

Detailed Comments

Provide specific, detailed comments on sections of the manuscript that require revision. If you suggest changes, be as specific as possible, for example, by referring to particular pages or paragraphs. Clearly indicate areas where improvements are needed, whether in terms of clarity, methodology, or scientific rigor.

Actionable Suggestions

If you recommend revisions, offer suggestions on how the authors can improve the manuscript. This may involve rewording sections, clarifying ambiguities, conducting additional analyses, or considering additional literature.

Confidential Comments to the Editor

If you have concerns about the manuscript that are not appropriate for the authors to see (e.g., ethical concerns, major flaws), provide confidential comments to the editor. This helps the editor make an informed decision.

Confidentiality and Plagiarism

Confidentiality

The manuscript you are reviewing is confidential. You should not share, discuss, or disseminate the manuscript, its findings, or any part of it with anyone outside the review process.

Plagiarism

You should be vigilant for any signs of plagiarism or unethical use of others' work. If you suspect plagiarism, report it to the editor. The journal may use plagiarism detection tools to screen submissions.

Reviewer’s Decision

After evaluating the manuscript, you will be asked to provide one of the following recommendations to the editor:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no (or very minor) revisions.

• Invitation to Revise: The manuscript requires revisions before it can be reconsidered for publication.

• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or is not suitable for publication in its current form.

Your recommendation will be used by the editor to make a final decision, but it is the editor’s responsibility to determine the outcome of the submission.

Timeliness

You are expected to complete your review within the time frame set by the journal. If you anticipate any delays, please notify the editorial office as early as possible. If you are unable to review the manuscript within the designated period, or if you feel unqualified to review it, please inform the editor promptly so that another reviewer can be found.

Ethical Considerations

Compliance with COPE Guidelines

The journal adheres to the ethical standards and best practices outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewers are expected to follow COPE’s guidelines in all aspects of the review process.

Handling of Unpublished Material

Any unpublished material in the manuscript should not be used for personal advantage. Reviewers must treat the manuscript as confidential and refrain from using any data or ideas in their own research without appropriate citation.

Conclusion

By agreeing to review a manuscript for TISJ, you are committing to following the ethical guidelines and responsibilities outlined above. Your feedback will contribute to the advancement of knowledge in your field and help ensure the integrity of the scientific literature. We appreciate your time, expertise, and commitment to scholarly publishing.

For further inquiries or if you require assistance with the review process, please contact the editorial office at: journal@topitalianscientists.org