Guide for Reviewers
Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the academic quality, integrity, and credibility of journals published by Ptolemy Scientific Research Press (PSR Press). The purpose of peer review is to assist editors in making fair and informed editorial decisions and to help authors improve the quality, clarity, accuracy, and scholarly value of their manuscripts.
The following guidelines describe the responsibilities of reviewers invited to evaluate manuscripts submitted to journals of PSR Press. Reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations with honesty, confidentiality, objectivity, professionalism, and respect for authors, editors, and the scholarly record.
Role of Reviewers
Reviewers are invited to provide an independent expert assessment of a submitted manuscript. Their task is not only to recommend whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected, but also to provide constructive comments that help the editor understand the strengths and weaknesses of the work.
A reviewer should evaluate whether the manuscript:
- falls within the subject area of the journal;
- presents original and meaningful scholarly work;
- is scientifically, technically, mathematically, or academically sound;
- has a clear objective, argument, method, or research question;
- uses appropriate methods, data, analysis, theory, or reasoning;
- presents results, proofs, interpretations, or conclusions accurately;
- cites relevant literature adequately;
- follows ethical standards;
- is written clearly enough for readers in the field.
The reviewer’s comments should support the editor’s decision and, where possible, guide the authors toward improving the manuscript.
Agreeing or Declining to Review
Reviewers should accept an invitation to review only when they have sufficient expertise in the subject area of the manuscript and can provide a careful, fair, and timely evaluation. A reviewer should not agree to review a manuscript merely because the topic is generally familiar; the reviewer should be able to assess the specific content, method, theory, analysis, or technical contribution of the work.
Reviewers should decline the invitation if:
- the manuscript is outside their area of expertise;
- they cannot complete the review within the required time;
- they have a conflict of interest;
- they feel unable to provide an objective evaluation;
- they have already reviewed the same manuscript for another journal and believe this may affect confidentiality or fairness;
- they are unable to assess important parts of the manuscript, such as technical proofs, experimental methods, statistical analysis, clinical claims, or specialized data.
If a reviewer can assess only part of the manuscript, this should be stated clearly to the editor. The editor may still consider the partial review useful, but the limitation should be disclosed before the reviewer accepts or in the review report.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must not accept a review assignment if they have any conflict of interest that could influence, or appear to influence, their judgment. Peer review must be independent and impartial.
Conflicts of interest may arise from:
- recent collaboration with any of the authors;
- current or recent employment at the same institution as the authors;
- close personal, professional, or academic relationships;
- supervisor, student, mentor, or close colleague relationships;
- financial interests connected with the manuscript or its findings;
- academic competition or personal disagreement;
- involvement in the preparation of the manuscript;
- membership in the same research project, grant, laboratory, or editorial initiative;
- any relationship with a company, institution, or organization connected to the work.
If a reviewer is uncertain whether a situation represents a conflict of interest, the reviewer should inform the editor and allow the editor to decide whether the review may proceed. Transparency is always preferable to silence.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, copy, distribute, quote from, or discuss the manuscript with anyone unless they have written permission from the editor handling the manuscript.
Reviewers must not use unpublished material, ideas, data, methods, arguments, figures, tables, results, or interpretations disclosed in the manuscript for their own research, teaching, publication, presentation, grant application, or professional advantage before the manuscript is published.
Reviewers should protect confidentiality by ensuring that:
- manuscript files are stored securely;
- review documents are not shared with students, colleagues, or assistants without editor approval;
- manuscript contents are not discussed in public or private academic conversations;
- unpublished information is not used for personal or institutional benefit;
- review reports are submitted only through the official system or email channel specified by the journal.
If a reviewer wishes to involve a colleague, assistant, or student in the review process for training or technical advice, the reviewer must first obtain permission from the editor. The names of all persons who contributed to the review should be disclosed to the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews must be objective, fair, constructive, and based on academic merit. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate. Reviewers should comment on the manuscript, not on the authors.
A good review should:
- identify the strengths of the manuscript;
- identify weaknesses clearly and respectfully;
- explain whether the manuscript makes a meaningful contribution;
- provide evidence-based comments;
- distinguish major issues from minor issues;
- avoid personal, offensive, dismissive, or emotional language;
- provide practical suggestions for improvement;
- avoid unnecessary requests that do not improve the manuscript.
Reviewers should support their comments with clear reasoning. For example, instead of writing only “the method is weak,” the reviewer should explain why the method is insufficient, what information is missing, and how the authors may improve the section.
Scope and Quality of the Review
Reviewers should assess the manuscript as a complete scholarly work. The review should not focus only on grammar, formatting, or minor technical details unless these issues prevent proper understanding of the manuscript.
Depending on the article type and discipline, reviewers may evaluate:
- originality and contribution;
- relevance to the journal;
- clarity of the title, abstract, and keywords;
- adequacy of the introduction and literature background;
- appropriateness of the research design or theoretical approach;
- accuracy of mathematical arguments, proofs, or models;
- suitability of data, experiments, methods, or computational procedures;
- correctness of statistical analysis, where applicable;
- validity of results and interpretation;
- quality and necessity of figures and tables;
- relationship between results and conclusions;
- ethical compliance;
- adequacy of references;
- clarity of language and organization.
Reviewers should state whether the manuscript can be improved through revision or whether the weaknesses are too substantial for publication in the journal.
Comments for Authors
Comments for authors should be written in a professional and helpful manner. These comments are usually shared with the authors and should therefore be clear, respectful, and useful.
The comments for authors may include:
- a brief summary of the manuscript;
- the reviewer’s general assessment;
- major comments that must be addressed;
- minor comments related to presentation, clarity, formatting, or references;
- suggestions for improving the manuscript;
- questions that the authors should answer in revision;
- comments on figures, tables, equations, data, or supplementary files;
- comments on language and readability, if necessary.
Reviewers should avoid revealing confidential recommendations intended only for the editor in the comments for authors. For example, if the reviewer recommends rejection, the reasoning should be explained constructively, but internal comments about editorial handling should be placed in the confidential comments to the editor.
Confidential Comments for the Editor
Reviewers may provide confidential comments to the editor when necessary. These comments are not usually shared with the authors and should be used for matters that require editorial attention.
Confidential comments may include:
- concerns about originality or overlap;
- suspected plagiarism or duplicate publication;
- possible data manipulation or image irregularity;
- ethical concerns;
- possible conflicts of interest;
- concerns about authorship or undisclosed related work;
- doubts about whether the manuscript fits the journal;
- explanation of the reviewer’s recommendation;
- information that may help the editor interpret the review.
Confidential comments should not contradict the comments provided to the authors. If the reviewer identifies a serious problem, the authors should usually receive enough explanation to understand the concern, unless confidentiality or ethical investigation requires otherwise.
Recommendations
Reviewers are usually asked to recommend one of the following decisions:
- accept;
- minor revision;
- major revision;
- reject.
An “accept” recommendation should be used only when the manuscript is scientifically sound, clearly written, ethically acceptable, and requires no substantial changes.
A “minor revision” recommendation is appropriate when the manuscript is generally suitable but needs limited corrections, clarification, formatting improvements, additional references, or small changes that do not alter the main findings or conclusions.
A “major revision” recommendation is appropriate when the manuscript has potential for publication but requires substantial changes. These may include major clarification of methods, stronger analysis, improved discussion, correction of technical weaknesses, reorganization, additional explanation, or revision of conclusions.
A “reject” recommendation is appropriate when the manuscript is outside the journal’s scope, lacks sufficient originality, has serious methodological or theoretical flaws, contains unsupported conclusions, has ethical problems, or cannot be improved to publication standard through reasonable revision.
The final editorial decision is made by the editor, not by the reviewer alone. The editor considers all review reports, the manuscript, journal policy, and the overall academic assessment.
Identification of Overlap, Similarity, and Ethical Concerns
Reviewers should alert the handling editor if they notice substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any published or submitted work of which they have personal knowledge.
Reviewers should inform the editor if they suspect:
- plagiarism;
- duplicate publication;
- redundant publication;
- inappropriate text recycling;
- fabricated or manipulated data;
- image manipulation;
- unsupported authorship;
- undisclosed conflicts of interest;
- unethical research involving humans or animals;
- missing consent or ethical approval;
- citation manipulation;
- inappropriate use of copyrighted material.
Reviewers are not required to conduct a full investigation. Their responsibility is to inform the editor clearly and provide supporting details where possible. The editor and journal will decide how to handle the concern according to publication ethics procedures.
Citation and Literature Suggestions
Reviewers are encouraged to identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors, especially when the missing literature is important for understanding the background, method, interpretation, or contribution of the manuscript.
However, citation suggestions must be based on valid academic reasons. Reviewers should not ask authors to cite the reviewer’s own work, the work of colleagues, or the work of associates merely to increase citation counts or visibility.
Citation suggestions should be:
- relevant to the manuscript;
- necessary or helpful for context;
- based on scholarly value;
- limited to appropriate and important sources;
- free from personal citation advantage.
If recommending additional references, reviewers should explain why the sources are relevant. Excessive or unnecessary citation requests should be avoided.
Reviewing Revised Manuscripts
Reviewers may be asked whether they are willing to review a revised version of the manuscript. When reviewing a revised manuscript, the reviewer should focus on whether the authors have adequately addressed the previous comments and whether the revised manuscript now meets the journal’s standards.
Reviewers should examine:
- the revised manuscript;
- the authors’ point-by-point response;
- any marked or highlighted changes;
- revised figures, tables, equations, or supplementary material;
- whether new problems were introduced during revision;
- whether previous major concerns have been resolved.
Reviewers should not introduce unnecessary new demands at the revision stage unless they are directly related to changes made in the revised manuscript or to issues that were overlooked in the first review. The revision review should remain fair, focused, and proportionate.
Review Timeline
Reviewers for PSR Press journals are normally given eight weeks to complete the review of an original manuscript. This period is intended to allow enough time for careful reading, evaluation, verification of key points, and preparation of constructive comments.
If a reviewer cannot complete the review within the assigned time, the reviewer should inform the editorial office as early as possible. An extension may be granted where appropriate. If the reviewer is unable to complete the review even with an extension, the reviewer should decline or withdraw from the review assignment so that the editor may invite another reviewer.
Timely review is important because delays affect authors, editors, journal schedules, and the publication process. Reviewers who accept an invitation are expected to complete the review within the agreed period or communicate promptly if difficulties arise.
Single-Blind Review Process
The peer-review process used by PSR Press journals is single-blind. This means that reviewers know the identity of the authors, but authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
Reviewers should not reveal their identity to the authors unless the journal has a specific policy allowing disclosure or the editor gives permission. Reviewers should avoid including identifying information in review reports, file names, document comments, tracked changes, or uploaded attachments.
The single-blind process is intended to protect reviewer confidentiality while allowing reviewers to consider relevant context about the manuscript. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the authors’ identity unfairly. The manuscript should be judged on its academic content, not on the nationality, institution, seniority, gender, reputation, or personal background of the authors.
Use of AI Tools, Final Responsibility, and Communication
Reviewers should handle manuscripts responsibly when using any digital or artificial intelligence tools. Because manuscripts under review are confidential, reviewers should not upload manuscript files, unpublished text, figures, tables, data, or review content to public AI tools, public editing platforms, or third-party services that may store or reuse the content, unless the journal has expressly allowed such use.
If a reviewer uses a secure tool for language checking or organization of their own review comments, the reviewer remains fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and content of the final review report. AI tools must not replace expert judgment, subject knowledge, ethical responsibility, or independent assessment.
All communication about the manuscript should take place through the editorial office or the official review system. Reviewers should not contact authors directly about the manuscript during or after the review process unless the editor has explicitly authorized such communication.
Reviewers who have questions about the manuscript, the review form, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, deadlines, technical problems, or ethical concerns should contact the editorial office or the handling editor.
By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to follow the standards of confidentiality, objectivity, fairness, and professionalism expected by PSR Press. Their contribution supports the quality of scholarly publishing and helps maintain trust in the peer-review process.