Reviewer Guidelines
Guidelines for Reviewers
The central objective of guidelines is to make sure that reviewers are aware of their tasks and responsibilities to produce a comprehensive and thoughtful feedback that will positively contribute to the research work of authors regardless of the final decision (acceptance/rejection/revision) made during the review process. The guidelines are structured into ten key points, each followed by a detailed explanation. Hopefully, you will find this information helpful.
Essential points
- Assess each manuscript based on the following criteria:
- if the manuscript aligns with the focus of the Journal of Environmental Science and Health.
- the novelty of the research and its potential appeal to the journal's readership.
- the robustness and appropriateness of the experiments conducted.
- Whether the statistical analysis included is comprehensive and employs suitable methods
- whether the conclusions drawn are justified based on the results presented.
- if the relevant literature has been adequately cited and critically discussed.
- Offer specific, constructive feedback that clearly outlines the necessary revisions or experiments for authors to address the reviewer's concerns.
- Be mindful of the one-month revision timeline (extendable to three months for complex experiments).
- Clearly state whether the manuscript is suitable for revision.
- Assess if the presentation or language obscures the paper’s potential quality.
- Treat all information as confidential.
- Disclose any conflicts of interest.
- List all reviewers involved in evaluating the manuscript.
- Report any instances of scientific misconduct identified.
- For resubmitted manuscripts, do not introduce new issues not covered in the initial review.
Before beginning your review, please reflect on the following key questions:
Is the manuscript aligned with your expertise?
You can opt out of reviewing the manuscript that does not align with your area of expertise. In such case, you must inform the editor on immediate basis.
Do you have adequate time for the review?
The deadline for completing reviews is usually 2 weeks. However, reviewers who are unable to meet this timeline must notify the editor and, if possible, recommend another competent reviewer.
Are there any conflicts of interest?
While conflicts do not automatically disqualify you from reviewing, it’s essential to disclose any potential conflicts to the editors beforehand. You can reach out to the editorial office for any questions regarding conflicts of interest.
All information in a manuscript is confidential and must not be used by reviewers for personal research or financial gain. After submitting their review, reviewers must destroy any electronic or print copies of the manuscript they have. Reviewers may cite the reviewed papers only after they are published in the journal.
Assessing manuscripts for publication
Journal of Environmental Science and Health
Reviewers must evaluate several key aspects of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Environmental Science and Health, including relevance, novelty, technical execution, literature discussion, and presentation quality.
a) Suitability
Reviewers should assess how well the manuscript aligns with the interests of the journal's readership, providing clear reasons for their evaluation.
b) Novelty
Reviewers need to evaluate the study’s significance and originality. They should identify strengths and weaknesses in comparison to existing research and determine if the study advances the field meaningfully.
c) Validity of Experiments
Reviewers should comment on the appropriateness of the experiments and statistical methods used, identifying any logical or methodological flaws. They should suggest ways to address these issues to enhance the manuscript's quality. Key information required includes:
- Sample size and replicates.
- Reproducibility of results.
- Clarification of error bars (e.g., SD or SEM).
- Details of statistical analysis, including tests used and significance levels (p-values).
d) Validity of the Conclusions
Reviewers must evaluate if the data supports the conclusions made in the manuscript, noting any overlooked alternative hypotheses.
e) Discussion of Current Literature
Reviewers should assess the relevance and timeliness of the cited references. They should suggest necessary additions to the reference list, particularly for significant papers that are missing.
f) Language and Presentation
Reviewers should comment on the clarity and quality of the manuscript’s presentation, including figures. They should differentiate between manuscripts needing language improvements and those fundamentally weak in study design. Key aspects to review include:
- The manuscript title's accuracy.
- The overall length of the manuscript—should it be shortened or expanded?
- The need for additional figures or supplementary materials.
g) Scientific Misconduct
Reviewers should report any suspicions of scientific misconduct, such as plagiarism, duplicate submissions, or inappropriate image manipulation. They should also identify instances of "salami" publishing, where minimal studies are published instead of comprehensive research.
Writing a Good Report
a) Identify the key findings
Summarize the study's main goals and findings, along with its strengths and weaknesses, in a few concise sentences.
b) Be comprehensive
Ensure that all issues highlighted in points 2a-g from the detailed instructions are addressed in the report.
c) Be objective
Maintain an objective tone in the report. Reviewers should respect the authors' intellectual independence and avoid enforcing a hypothesis-driven framework.
d) Provide a clear recommendation
Clearly state whether the manuscript can be revised to meet the publication standards of the Journal of Environmental Science and Health.
e) Provide specific, constructive criticism
Comments should aim to help authors enhance their work, offering tangible suggestions for addressing identified weaknesses.
f) Do not be unnecessarily demanding
While minor issues can be noted, reviewers should focus on the overall significance of the study and avoid asking for unnecessary experiments that do not enhance the main conclusions. Keep in mind the typical revision timeframe of three months, or six for more extensive experiments.
g) Do not be offensive
If the study is weak, provide a critical assessment without being rude or overly harsh. Stick to factual observations rather than personal critiques. Negative comments should be directed to the "Confidential comments to the Editor" section.
h) Disclose any conflicts of interest
Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest in their comments.
i) State who reviewed the paper
Include the names of all reviewers in the "Confidential comments to editors" section.
Reviewing revised manuscripts
Revised manuscripts are delegated to the same reviewer who suggested the changes to be made during the initial review process. However, you must comply with the following guidelines during the second review phase:
a) Avoid raising new issues
Reviewers should avoid introducing concerns that could have been identified in the initial review. However, they may address new issues that emerge from the additional data included in the revision.
b) Is the manuscript still up-to-date?
Given that revisions can take several months, reviewers should check for any relevant publications that may have appeared during that time and assess whether the manuscript and its reference list are current.
The editorial process
Decision process
Editors have the right to make the final publishing decision based on input from reviewers.
Conflicting reviews
If the reviewers disagree or there is a significant difference in their opinions, editors may step in to share all reviews with each of them to gain additional insights. Decisions are made at the discretion of the Academic Editor and are not strictly based on majority opinion.
Reviewer recognition and certificate
Recognizing the significant time and expertise reviewers contribute, the Journal of Environmental Science and Health has several initiatives to support and acknowledge them. Reviewers can request a certificate of recognition and a confirmation letter from the editorial office to present to their employers or institutions.
