REVIEWER GUIDE

  1. Reviewer Guide for Journal Views

    Thank you for agreeing to review for Views. As a peer reviewer, you play a crucial role in ensuring the quality and integrity of the research published in the journal. Your feedback helps maintain the high standards of the journal and supports the advancement of scholarly knowledge.

    This guide aims to provide clear instructions and expectations for the review process. Please follow these steps carefully when reviewing manuscripts.

    1. Review Criteria

    When reviewing a manuscript for Views, please consider the following key criteria:

    • Originality and Significance:

      • Does the manuscript present new, innovative, and significant findings in the field?

      • Is the research novel and does it contribute to advancing the knowledge in the area it addresses?

    • Relevance to the Journal:

      • Does the article align with the scope and aims of Views?

      • Is the research relevant to the journal’s readership, and does it offer insights that can benefit the academic community?

    • Quality of Research:

      • Is the methodology sound, appropriate, and well-explained?

      • Are the research design and analysis appropriate for the research questions or hypotheses posed?

      • Are the results clearly presented and properly analyzed?

    • Clarity and Structure:

      • Is the manuscript clearly written and logically organized?

      • Does the abstract summarize the key points effectively?

      • Are the introduction, methodology, results, and discussion sections well-structured and easy to follow?

    • Literature Review:

      • Is the literature review comprehensive, relevant, and up-to-date?

      • Does the manuscript acknowledge previous research in the field and position its findings in the broader context of the topic?

    • Ethical Standards:

      • Has the manuscript adhered to ethical research practices?

      • Are the research participants' privacy and consent addressed?

      • Is there any evidence of research misconduct, such as plagiarism or data fabrication?

    • Conclusions:

      • Are the conclusions supported by the data and analysis presented?

      • Are the implications of the findings discussed thoroughly, and are limitations and suggestions for future research provided?

    2. Review Process

    • Confidentiality: All manuscripts under review are confidential. Do not share or discuss the manuscript with anyone outside the review process.

    • Constructive Feedback: When providing feedback, aim to be constructive and objective. Highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript to guide the author in improving their work.

    • Timeliness: Please submit your review within the deadline set by the journal. If you are unable to meet the deadline or if you feel that you are not qualified to review the manuscript, please notify the editorial office as soon as possible.

    3. Types of Review Decisions

    After reviewing the manuscript, please select one of the following decisions:

    • Accept: The manuscript is of high quality and requires no revisions or minimal revisions. Recommend acceptance for publication.

    • Minor Revisions: The manuscript is generally well-written, but some minor changes (e.g., clarity, grammar, or additional references) are needed before acceptance.

    • Major Revisions: Significant revisions are required to improve the manuscript, including changes to the methodology, analysis, or structure. Authors should address major issues before resubmitting.

    • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for publication, and no further revisions will be sufficient.

    4. Providing Feedback to Authors

    • General Comments: Provide a summary of your overall evaluation of the manuscript, including the major strengths and weaknesses.

    • Specific Comments: Highlight specific sections that need improvement, such as unclear arguments, methodology issues, or areas that need more detail. Be precise and provide suggestions for improvements.

    • Recommendation for Authors: If recommending major or minor revisions, be clear about what the authors need to address. If rejecting the manuscript, provide reasons that justify your decision.

    5. Ethical Considerations

    • Conflict of Interest: If you have any conflicts of interest (e.g., personal or professional relationships with the authors), disclose them immediately. If you feel that you cannot provide an unbiased review due to a conflict of interest, please inform the editorial team.

    • Plagiarism: Check if the manuscript contains any instances of plagiarism. If you suspect that the manuscript may have used others’ work without proper citation or permission, inform the editor.

    • Confidentiality: Do not share the manuscript or its contents with others during the review process. Maintain confidentiality before and after your review is completed.

    6. Finalizing the Review

    Once you have completed your review, submit your feedback via the journal’s review system. If you have recommended revisions, make sure your comments are clear and actionable. The editor will then communicate your feedback to the authors.

    7. Acknowledgment

    Your work as a reviewer is essential in ensuring the credibility and quality of the research published in Views. We appreciate the time and effort you dedicate to this process and value your contribution to scholarly communication.