Purpose and Scope
These guidelines define the expectations, responsibilities, and process standards for reviewers evaluating manuscripts submitted to any journal within the Research Pillars Publishing portfolio. They are designed to align with internationally recognized publishing ethics frameworks, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work, and generally accepted Good Publication Practice (GPP) standards.
Editors-in-Chief and Editorial Boards of individual journals may supplement these with journal-specific technical criteria (e.g., statistical reporting standards, AI/ML methodology checks), but the principles below apply publisher-wide and take precedence in the event of conflict.
Reviewer Eligibility and Invitation
Reviewers should have demonstrable subject-matter expertise relevant to the manuscript, evidenced by publication record, professional practice, or credentialed training.
Reviewers must disclose, at the point of invitation, any reason they should not review a given manuscript (see Section 4, Conflicts of Interest).
A reviewer who does not have the expertise or time to complete a fair, timely review should decline promptly and, where possible, suggest an alternative qualified reviewer.
No reviewer may accept an invitation on behalf of a colleague, student, or other third party, or delegate the review to someone else, without the handling editor's explicit written permission.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the manuscript, review, or associated data with anyone outside the review process without prior authorization from the editor.
Reviewers must not use knowledge of the unpublished work for personal or professional advantage, including in their own research, funding applications, or investment decisions.
Reviewers must not upload manuscript content to third-party AI tools, cloud services, or any external platform that retains or trains on submitted data.
Confidentiality obligations continue after the review is complete and after publication decisions are made.
Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must decline an invitation, or disclose the conflict and let the editor decide, if any of the following apply within the last 3 years (or longer where influence may reasonably persist):
Direct collaboration, co-authorship, or joint grant funding with any author.
Employment at the same institution as an author, or a current/former direct supervisory relationship (student, postdoc, mentor).
Personal relationships (family, close friendship) or personal/professional rivalry with an author.
Financial interests connected to the subject matter (equity, consulting fees, patents, product endorsement) that could benefit or be harmed by the manuscript's publication.
Prior involvement in the same work as a grant reviewer, ethics committee member, or advisor, where objectivity may be compromised.
All conflicts, whether disqualifying or merely disclosable, must be reported to the handling editor before or immediately upon starting the review.
Standards of Review Conduct
Reviewers are expected to:
Be objective and evidence-based. Evaluate the work on its scientific/technical merit, not on the authors' identity, nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, or prior publication history.
Be constructive. Comments should help authors improve the work, even when recommending rejection. Personal criticism, ad hominem remarks, or dismissive language are not acceptable.
Be specific. Vague objections ("the methodology is weak") should be replaced with actionable detail ("the sample size calculation does not account for expected attrition; see Section 3.2").
Be timely. Reviews should be submitted by the agreed deadline. Reviewers who anticipate delay must notify the editorial office as early as possible.
Distinguish comments for authors from confidential comments to the editor. Concerns about misconduct, data integrity, or conflicts should go to the editor only, not into author-facing comments.
Core Review Criteria
Reviewers should assess, as applicable to the manuscript type:
Originality and contribution — Does the work add meaningfully to the existing literature? Is prior-related work adequately cited and differentiated?
Scientific/technical validity — Are the methods, study design, and analysis appropriate and sound? Are claims supported by the data presented?
Clarity and reproducibility — Is the methodology described in enough detail for replication? Are data, code, and materials availability statements complete where required?
Ethical compliance — For human/animal subjects research: is there evidence of appropriate ethics approval, informed consent, and adherence to relevant reporting guidelines (e.g., CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA)? For AI/ML-based studies: are datasets, training/validation/test splits, and evaluation metrics disclosed, and are limitations and potential biases addressed?
Statistical rigor — Are statistical methods appropriate, correctly applied, and correctly interpreted?
Presentation — Is the manuscript organized clearly, with figures/tables that are accurate and readable?
Compliance with journal scope and author guidelines — Does the submission fit the journal's aims and adhere to formatting/reporting requirements?
Handling Suspected Misconduct
If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification, image manipulation, undisclosed AI-generated content presented as original work, redundant (duplicate) publication, or authorship irregularities, the reviewer must:
Not contact the authors directly.
Report the concern, with specifics, directly and only to the handling editor or editorial office.
Continue to treat the matter as confidential.
Use of AI Tools in the Review Process
Reviewers may use AI-based tools to assist their own writing or to check grammar of their review comments, but must not input confidential manuscript text, figures, or data into generative AI tools or other third-party systems that are not covered by an appropriate confidentiality/data-protection agreement with the publisher.
The substantive scientific evaluation must reflect the named reviewer's own expert judgment. AI tools may not be used as a substitute for the reviewer's assessment or listed as a reviewer.
Any use of AI assistance in preparing review comments should be disclosed to the editor upon request.
Recommendation Categories
Reviewers should provide a recommendation using the journal's standard categories, typically:
Accept — No further changes required.
Minor Revision — Publishable after small clarifications or corrections.
Major Revision — Requires substantial additional work, re-analysis, or new experiments before a further review round.
Reject — Not suitable for publication in this journal, whether due to fundamental flaws, insufficient contribution, or scope mismatch.
Recommendations must be consistent with, and justified by, the detailed comments provided.
Reviewer Recognition and Records
Reviewers may request formal acknowledgment of completed reviews (e.g., a reviewer certificate or listing in the journal's annual reviewer acknowledgment) in accordance with the individual journal's policy.
The publisher maintains records of reviewer activity, including timeliness and quality, to inform future invitations and Editorial Board recommendations.
Appeals and Reviewer Disagreement
Where an author appeals a decision, a reviewer may be asked by the editor to reconsider their comments in light of the author's rebuttal. Reviewers should respond to such requests promptly and in the same objective, evidence-based manner as the original review.