Unified Recommendations to Reviewers

The recommendations below list expectations from editors to peer reviewers regarding individual sections of the peer review. Please follow these guidelines to provide concise and actionable feedback, avoiding unnecessary summaries and lengthy reviews.

General Guidelines

• Please be constructive, respectful, and professional

• Please refrain from summarizing manuscripts.

• Please avoid vague or generic statements.

• Please identify specific issues and areas for improvement

• Please provide actionable feedback to improve scientific rigor, clarity, and impact.

• AI tools may be used for copy-editing purposes only, provided that disclosure is made.

Conflict of Interest

• Do you have any conflicts of interest that could bias your ability to provide an independent review?

Please justify your responses to each question below.

Overall Assessment

	Questions for Initial Review
Originality and Novelty	Does the manuscript present a novel contribution to the field? Is the research question clearly stated and relevant? Does the manuscript fill a gap in existing knowledge or provide new insights?
Scope and Impact	Is the study within the journal’s scope? Does the manuscript have a significant scientific or practical impact?
Clarity and Focus	Is the writing clear, concise, and well-organized? Are the study’s objectives and conclusions well-aligned?
Title and Abstract	Is the title clear and accurate? And does it represent the study? Does the abstract accurately summarize the key findings and significance of the study?

Introduction

	Questions for Initial Review
Introduction	Is the introduction well-structured, providing sufficient background and context for the study? Are the research objectives or hypotheses clearly stated? Does the introduction provide relevant, up-to-date, and correct references?

Methods

	Questions for Initial Review
Rigor	Are the methods appropriate and sufficiently detailed to allow reproducibility? Are the study design, sample size, and data collection procedures justified and adequate? Are the statistical methods, sample size, and controls appropriate?
Methods	Does the study adhere to ethical guidelines (e.g., animal or human research) if applicable?

Results

	Questions for Initial Review
Interpretation	Are the findings interpreted correctly and supported by the data? Are the results overinterpreted or overstated? Are there any inconsistencies or ambiguities in the results?
Presentation	Are the results presented clearly and well-organized? Are figures, tables, and supplementary materials accurately labeled and relevant? Are statistical results reported accurately and interpreted correctly?

Discussion

	Questions for Initial Review
Context	Does the discussion place the findings in the context of existing literature?
Conclusions	Do the results support the conclusions?
Limitations	Does the discussion include the study’s limitations?

Final Recommendation

What is your final recommendation for publication: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject?