UAR Publisher follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, accuracy, and originality of published research. Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining academic integrity by providing fair, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts.
1. Responsibilities of Reviewers
- Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential and not share, discuss, or use any information from the manuscript for personal or professional gain.
- Unbiased Evaluation: Reviews should be objective, constructive, and free from personal bias. Criticism should be academic and professional, not personal.
- Originality & Plagiarism Check: If plagiarism, duplication, or unethical practices are detected, reviewers should immediately report it to the editor.
- Conflict of Interest Disclosure: If a reviewer has any personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest, they must decline the review and notify the editor.
- Timely Review Submission: Reviewers must adhere to the given deadline and inform the editor if an extension is needed.
2. Criteria for Manuscript Evaluation
Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on the following:
| Criteria | Evaluation Focus |
|---|---|
| Originality | Is the research new, significant, and innovative? |
| Relevance | Does the manuscript align with the journal’s aims and scope? |
| Clarity & Structure | Is the paper well-organized, clear, and professionally written? |
| Methodology | Are the research methods appropriate, valid, and properly explained? |
| Data Accuracy | Are the results reliable, well-presented, and supported by data? |
| References & Citations | Are sources properly cited and formatted as per journal guidelines? |
3. Review Decision & Recommendations
After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers should provide a detailed review report along with one of the following recommendations:
- Accept as is – No revisions needed.
- Accept with minor revisions – Small corrections required before publication.
- Revise and resubmit – Major revisions needed; manuscript should be re-evaluated.
- Reject – The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or is unsuitable for publication.
Reviewers should provide clear, constructive comments to help authors improve their work.
4. Ethical Considerations
- Reviewers must not use manuscript content for their own research.
- If ethical issues (e.g., data fabrication, conflicts of interest) are suspected, reviewers should report them to the editor without contacting the author directly.
5. Acknowledgment & Recognition
- UAR Publisher appreciates the efforts of dedicated reviewers in maintaining research integrity.
- Exceptional reviewers may be recognized in the journal or invited to the editorial board.
By following these guidelines, reviewers contribute to ensuring the highest standards of scholarly publishing at UAR Publisher.
