Peer review, or refereeing, is a collaborative process that allows manuscripts submitted to a journal to be evaluated by scholars within the same field of research. Comments and critique from peer review provide authors with feedback to improve their work and allows the editor to assess the paper’s suitability for publication.
The peer review plays a fundamental role in helping to ensure published work is accurate, trustworthy, and meets the highest standards of research in a given field.
Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scholar is a privilege. However, it is also a time-consuming responsibility. eSSH and its editors, authors, and readers therefore appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility . We hope that these Guidelines help.
Please agree to review manuscripts only if you have the subject expertise to do so.
Please respect the confidentiality of peer review and do not reveal details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process.
Please declare all potential conflicting interests. If you have any doubts in this regard please seek our opinion/advice.
There are many reasons to reject a paper, such as if there are serious flaws in research design, incorrect interpretation of data, or English usage flaws that prevent critical review of the manuscript, then recommend that the manuscript be rejected. If you feel that the deficiencies can be corrected within a reasonable period of time, then recommend modification.
Peer reviewers should:
- not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others;
not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations,
be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments.
Is the submission original?
Does the paper help to expand or further research in this subject area?
Do you feel that the significance and potential impact of a paper is high or low?
Give your main impressions of the article, including whether it is novel and interesting, whether it has a sufficient impact and adds to the knowledge base.
Point out any journal-specific points
Give specific comments and suggestions, including about layout and format, title, abstract, introduction, graphical abstracts and/or highlights, method, statistical errors, results, conclusion/discussion, language and references.
Is the methodology presented in the manuscript and any analysis provided both accurate and properly conducted?
If you suspect plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns, raise your suspicions with the editor, providing as much detail as possible.
For further clarifications please feel free to write to the editor/s at the given address.