Guidelines for Reviewers

Below are comprehensive and elaborated Reviewer Guidelines for the Purbanchal University International Journal of Science and Technology. These guidelines ensure quality, fairness, academic integrity, and professionalism in the review process.

Purbanchal University International Journal of Science and Technology peer-review process is the foundation of academic publishing. Reviewers play a crucial role in evaluating the quality, originality, and scientific validity of submitted manuscripts. The following guidelines outline expectations, ethical principles, and detailed steps to ensure thorough, fair, and constructive reviews.

1. Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

1.1 Purpose of Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts to determine:

The originality and scholarly value of the research
The methodological rigor and scientific validity
The clarity, coherence, and completeness of the manuscript
Whether the manuscript fits the aims and scope of the journal

1.2 Professional Conduct

Reviewers are expected to:

Conduct reviews objectively and professionally
Provide constructive feedback
Avoid any personal criticism of authors
Maintain confidentiality at all times

2. Confidentiality Obligations

Manuscripts submitted for review must be treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers must not share, discuss, copy, or store the manuscript without permission from the editorial board.
Ideas or data obtained through peer review cannot be used for the reviewer’s personal research.
Reviewers must delete the manuscript and related files after completing the review.

3. Conflict of Interest Policy

Reviewers must immediately inform the Editorial Board if:

They have collaborated with the author(s) within the last five years
They have a personal, academic, or financial relationship with the author(s)
They feel they cannot provide an unbiased review

If any conflict of interest exists, the reviewer must decline the invitation.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:

4.1 Originality & Contribution

Does the study address a new problem or offer new insights?
Is the contribution significant to the field?

4.2 Relevance to Journal Scope

Does the topic align with the journal’s aims and disciplines?

4.3 Scientific Rigor & Methodology

Are the research methods appropriate and well explained?
Is the study reproducible?
Are statistical analyses correct and valid?

4.4 Clarity and Quality of Writing

Is the manuscript well structured?
Is the language clear and academically sound?
Are tables, figures, and graphs clear and properly referenced?

4.5 Ethical Compliance

Are ethical approvals mentioned (if applicable)?
Is plagiarism within acceptable limits?
Is AI generated content within limit?

4.6 Quality of Discussion & Conclusions

Are results interpreted logically?
Do conclusions align with findings?
Are limitations acknowledged?

5. Structure of the Reviewer’s Report

A high-quality review should include:

5.1 Summary of the Manuscript (1–2 paragraphs)

Briefly summarize:

The objective of the study
Methodology
Key findings
Overall contribution

5.2 Major Comments

Feedback that addresses:

Methodological flaws
Misinterpretations
Missing references
Insufficient evidence
Weak contributions

5.3 Minor Comments

Feedback addressing:

Grammar and language corrections
Clarity improvements
Formatting issues
Citation corrections

5.4 Recommendation

Reviewers must choose one of the following:

Accept
Accept with Minor Revisions
Major Revisions Required
Reject

Reasons for the recommendation must be clearly stated.

6. Ethical Standards for Reviewers

Reviewers must:

6.1 Ensure Academic Honesty

Avoid plagiarism in reviews
Provide evidence-based comments

6.2 Treat Authors with Respect

Use professional and respectful language
Avoid harsh, abusive, or biased comments
Provide suggestions for improvement

6.3 Decline Review If Unqualified

If the reviewer lacks expertise in the manuscript’s subject
If the reviewer cannot meet the deadline

7. Reviewer Responsibilities Regarding Plagiarism & AI-generated Text

Reviewers should:

Check for signs of plagiarism or excessive similarity
Note any suspicious overlap with published literature
For AI-generated content:

Ensure authors declare any AI assistance
Confirm that generated content does not replace original research

The final plagiarism check will be performed by the editorial office.

8. Timelines for Review

Standard review period: 2–3 weeks
If more time is needed, the reviewer must inform the editor.
Failure to submit a review on time may delay the publication process

9. Anonymity and Double-Blind Review

This journal follows a double-blind peer-review system:

Authors do not know the identity of reviewers
Reviewers do not know the identity of authors

Reviewers must avoid comments that could reveal their identity.

10. Constructive Feedback Expectations

Reviewers should:

Provide actionable suggestions for improvement
Highlight strengths as well as weaknesses
Offer alternative interpretations or recommended analysis methods
Suggest relevant literature that authors may have overlooked

Constructive criticism helps authors improve their work.

11. Reviewers' Contribution Acknowledgment

The journal acknowledges the contributions of reviewers through:

Certificate of Appreciation (issued annually or per issue)
Listing reviewer names in the journal’s acknowledgement section (optional)
Considering them for future editorial positions

12. Withdrawal from Review

Reviewers must withdraw if:

They discover a conflict of interest
They feel unqualified to evaluate the manuscript
They realize they cannot complete the review in time

They should notify the editorial board as early as possible.

13. Commitment to Maintaining Journal Quality

Reviewers must ensure:

Only high-quality, original, and ethical research is recommended
Unethical, plagiarized, or poorly conducted research is rejected
Articles that require improvement are guided constructively

Their contribution directly influences the journal’s academic reputation and indexing potential.

14. Post-Review Responsibilities

After completing the review:

The reviewer must not retain manuscript files
The reviewer must not contact the author directly
All communication must strictly go through the editorial office

15. Optional Additional Responsibilities

Reviewers may be invited to:

Review revised versions of the same manuscript
Provide suggestions for improving the review process
Recommend external reviewers for specialized topics

1. Reviewer Checklist (Comprehensive)

Reviewer Name: __________________________________
Article ID / Manuscript No.: ________________________
Article Title: ______________________________________

Please check each item carefully:

A. Relevance & Contribution

· The manuscript fits within the Aim & Scope of the journal.

· The research addresses a meaningful scientific or technological problem.

· The study adds new insights, methods, or findings to the field.

· The title accurately reflects the content.

B. Structure & Organization

· Abstract clearly summarizes background, methodology, results, and conclusion.

· Introduction provides context, research gap, and objectives.

· Methods are clearly described and reproducible.

· Results are presented logically with proper tables/figures.

· Discussion interprets findings in relation to existing literature.

· Conclusion is clear, concise, and supported by data.

· References are complete, relevant, and follow journal guidelines.

C. Scientific Quality

· Research design is appropriate and scientifically sound.

· Data analysis is accurate and valid.

· Findings are supported by evidence.

· Arguments are coherent and logical.

· Claims are not exaggerated.

D. Presentation Quality

· Manuscript is well written and easy to follow.

· Grammar, spelling, and technical writing are satisfactory.

· Figures and tables are clear and well-labeled.

· Formatting follows the Author Guidelines and template.

E. Ethical Considerations

· Plagiarism appears absent or within acceptable limit (<15%).

· Proper citation and acknowledgment of prior work exist.

· No signs of data manipulation or unethical research practices.

· Ethical approval is mentioned if human/animal subjects are involved.

F. Recommendation

· Accept

· Minor Revision

· Major Revision

· Reject

Reviewer’s Signature/Initials: _____________________
Date: _____________________

✅ 2. Review Report Template (Detailed)

Review Report for Manuscript ID: _______________________
Title of Manuscript: ___________________________________
Reviewer Name (optional): _____________________________
Date: _______________________________________________

1. Summary of the Manuscript

Provide a brief summary of the objective, methods, and major findings (5–8 sentences).

2. Strengths of the Paper

3. Major Issues (To Be Addressed)

(List major concerns related to scientific validity, methodology, analysis, or ethical issues.)
1.
2.
3.

4. Minor Issues (To Be Corrected)

(Grammar, clarity, formatting, missing references, ambiguous statements.)
1.
2.
3.

5. Specific Comments to Authors (Line-by-line if needed)

Example:

· Line 45: Provide citation.

· Page 3, Table 2: Caption incomplete.

· Figure 4: Low resolution—replace with clearer version.

6. Recommendation

Please select one:

· Accept

· Accept with Minor Revisions

· Major Revisions Required

· Reject