Submissions· Reviewer Guidelines

We want every reviewer to go through these guidelines carefully. They are crafted to help reviewers provide constructive, objective, and insightful feedback that aligns with the journal's advancing research on humanitarian logistics and supply chain management research. Your role is crucial in maintaining the journal's high standards by evaluating the scientific merit, relevance, and presentation of submitted manuscripts. It should contribute to the field's growth.

Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review is a critical element of academic publishing that ensures the integrity, quality, and reliability of scholarly work. It serves as a checkpoint to:

Enhance Research Quality: Reviewers help identify gaps in the research methodology, inconsistencies in data, or areas requiring clarification to refine the overall study.

Validate Findings: Peer review confirms that the conclusions drawn align with the evidence presented, adding credibility to the research.

Foster Academic Progress: By encouraging constructive feedback and critical analysis, peer review promotes innovation and deeper understanding within the scientific community.

Support Ethical Practices: The process also acts as a protection against plagiarism, data manipulation, and other forms of misconduct.

A successful peer review process is based on reviewers who are objective, knowledgeable, and thorough in their evaluations.

Qualifications & Expertise

Reviewers are carefully selected based on their expertise and familiarity with the manuscript's subject area. To contribute effectively:

Relevant Expertise: Ensure you have a strong understanding of the manuscript's core concepts, methodologies, and emerging trends in the field.

Updated Knowledge: Stay informed about the latest advancements and best practices in your domain. This allows you to provide insights that are both current and relevant.

Technical Proficiency: Familiarize yourself with any specialized techniques or analytical tools discussed in the manuscript to evaluate their application effectively.

If you feel the manuscript falls outside your area of expertise, promptly notify the editor to ensure the review process is not delayed.

Confidentiality in Peer Review

Confidentiality is the cornerstone of a fair and unbiased review process. As a reviewer:

Protect Manuscript Details: Do not share, discuss, or disclose any aspect of the manuscript with others. This includes data, methodologies, or findings that are not yet publicly available.

Avoid Conflicts of Interest: If you have any prior association with the authors or the research, disclose it to the editor immediately to prevent bias. Examples of conflicts include professional collaborations, personal relationships, or competing research.

Data Security: If you download or store the manuscript locally during the review process, ensure it is kept secure and deleted after submission of your review.

Maintaining confidentiality preserves the integrity of the review process and protects the rights of authors and reviewers alike.

Timely Review Submission

Timeliness is essential to the peer review process, as delays can significantly impact publication timelines. Reviewers are expected to:

Adhere to Deadlines: Commit to the timeline set by the journal. If unforeseen circumstances arise, communicate with the editor immediately to request an extension or recommend alternate reviewers.

Plan Your Review: Allocate sufficient time to thoroughly evaluate the manuscript. A rushed review risks overlooking critical issues or providing superficial feedback.

Submit Comprehensive Feedback: Ensure your review includes detailed evaluations of all aspects of the manuscript, from research design to presentation, before submission.

By adhering to deadlines, you contribute to a smoother publication process and respect the efforts of the authors and editorial team.

Initial Assessment of the Manuscript

Before diving into a detailed evaluation, reviewers should conduct a preliminary assessment to gauge the manuscript's suitability for the journal. Key aspects to review include:

Scope Alignment: Verify that the manuscript fits within the journal's thematic focus and adheres to its aims and objectives.

Novelty and Originality: Assess whether the manuscript offers unique insights, approaches, or findings that advance the field. Redundant or derivative work should be flagged.

Compliance with Submission Guidelines: Confirm that the manuscript meets the journal's formatting and structural requirements, such as word count, referencing style, and organization.

If the manuscript fails to meet these basic criteria, provide constructive feedback to help the authors address shortcomings before resubmission.

Constructive Feedback Analysis

Providing feedback is a delicate balance between identifying areas for improvement and encouraging the authors. Effective feedback should:

Be Specific: Pinpoint exact issues within the manuscript, such as unclear phrasing, missing references, or flawed data interpretation. Avoid vague or overly general comments.

Remain Respectful: Use professional language to maintain a constructive tone. Refrain from harsh criticism, which can discourage authors.

Offer Solutions: Alongside highlighting problems, suggest actionable steps for improvement, such as reanalyzing data, rephrasing sections, or exploring additional references.

Encourage Improvement: Acknowledge the strengths of the manuscript to motivate the authors while guiding them on how to enhance weaker aspects.

Constructive feedback is instrumental in helping authors refine their work and ensures the overall quality of published research.

Assessing Scientific Merit

Reviewers must carefully analyze the manuscript's technical, theoretical, and practical contributions to the field. Key elements to assess include:

Technical Soundness: Ensure all methodologies are described in sufficient detail for replication. Look for a clear explanation of the experimental setup, control measures, and data analysis techniques. Verify whether the research methods align with established practices in the field and are innovative where required.
Hypotheses and Objectives: Evaluate whether the research questions and hypotheses are clearly stated and logically derived from the literature. Consider if the objectives are well-defined and measurable.
Data Quality and Relevance: Analyze whether the data collection process, sample selection, and size are appropriate to the study's aims. Check for biases or inconsistencies that could impact the validity of the results.
Conclusions and Implications: Assess whether the conclusions are justified by the data and analyses presented. Consider if the authors have discussed the broader implications of their findings and potential limitations.

Language & Presentation

While not primarily responsible for editing language, reviewers play a crucial role in ensuring the manuscript's readability and accessibility to a global audience. Key points to consider include:

Clarity and Precision: Evaluate whether the manuscript uses concise and precise language to convey complex ideas. Highlight sentences or sections that are overly verbose or ambiguous.
Technical Terminology: Ensure the use of specialized terms is accurate and consistent. Verify that critical terms and acronyms are defined upon first use for clarity.
Structure and Flow: Assess whether the manuscript is logically organized, with a clear progression from the introduction to the conclusion. Identify areas where the narrative could be streamlined or reordered for better comprehension.
Figures, Tables, and Supplementary Materials: Examine whether all figures and tables are essential, well-labeled, and accompanied by clear explanations. Suggest improvements or additions to enhance the manuscript's visual representation of data.

Scientific Misconduct

Scientific integrity is a cornerstone of academic publishing. Reviewers must remain vigilant for potential misconduct, including:

Plagiarism: Use plagiarism detection tools or manual cross-checking to ensure originality. Check if the manuscript includes proper citations for all sources, particularly direct quotes, data, and images.
Data Manipulation or Fabrication: Review data tables and graphical representations for inconsistencies or anomalies that suggest intentional tampering.
Authorship Issues: Confirm that the listed authors meet the criteria for significant contribution and accountability in line with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. Flag concerns regarding ghost authorship or honorary authorship.
'Salami' Publishing: Scrutinize whether the manuscript is part of an unnecessary fragmentation of a single dataset or study into multiple papers to increase publication counts.

Writing a Comprehensive Review Report

A strong and constructive review report is essential for guiding both authors and editors. Follow these best practices:

Summary of Key Findings: Provide a concise summary of the manuscript's aims, methodology, and key results. This ensures alignment between the reviewer, authors, and editors.
Detailed Feedback: Offer specific, actionable suggestions for improvement. For example, instead of saying, "improve the discussion section," suggest areas where additional references or comparisons could enhance depth.
Balanced Critique: Avoid being overly critical. Acknowledge the manuscript's strengths, such as innovative approaches, strong data, or impactful implications, while addressing areas for improvement.
Recommendation for Editors: Clearly indicate your recommendation—acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection—and justify it based on the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses.

Reviewing Revised Manuscripts

The review process for revised manuscripts requires attention to both original comments and new changes. Key steps include:

Reassessing Addressed Concerns: Ensure the authors have adequately responded to your initial feedback. Cross-reference the revised manuscript with the authors' response letter to confirm alignment.
Identifying New Issues: Review any additional experiments, data, or sections added in the revision. Raise concerns if the new content introduces inconsistencies or unresolved questions.
Consistency in Feedback: Maintain fairness and consistency in evaluating the revised manuscript. Avoid introducing entirely new critiques unless directly related to the revisions.

Next Steps & Communication

Communication is vital for ensuring a seamless review process. Consider the following:

Submitting Comments: Provide a clear and detailed review report through the journal's submission portal. Ensure the division between confidential comments (for editors only) and public comments (for authors) is clear and appropriate.

Ethical Review Standards: Follow the ethical guidelines set by the journal. If unsure about any aspect of the review process, consult with the editorial team for guidance.

Follow-Up: If further revisions are necessary, recommend specific steps to improve the manuscript. Additionally, indicate whether you would be willing to review subsequent revisions.

The Editorial Process

The editorial process is a multi-layered procedure designed to maintain the highest research quality and meet academic standards. Once a manuscript has been reviewed:

Decision Authority: The editors hold the ultimate responsibility for deciding whether a manuscript is accepted, revised, or rejected. They evaluate feedback from reviewers alongside other considerations, such as journal priorities and ethical compliance.

Transparent Communication: Authors are informed of the final decision with detailed explanations, including reviewer comments and editorial input, ensuring clarity.

This process ensures that decisions are fair, justified, and aligned with the journal's quality benchmarks.

Handling Conflicting Reviews

Occasionally, reviewers may provide conflicting assessments of a manuscript, which can complicate the decision-making process. In such cases:

Engaging Reviewers: Editors may share the conflicting reviews with each reviewer, inviting further comments to clarify disagreements. This collaborative approach can often reveal overlooked perspectives or align diverging opinions.

Academic Editor's Judgment: While reviews carry significant weight, editors are not bound to follow the majority opinion. Instead, they use their expertise to assess the merit of each review alongside author responses, supplementary materials, or any additional insights.

Objective Evaluation: Decisions are guided by the overall quality, originality, and potential impact of the manuscript rather than consensus alone.

Reviewer Recognition & Incentives

Reviewers are integral to maintaining the quality of published research, and the journal recognizes their valuable contributions through:

Reviewer Certificate: A formal certificate is available upon request, acknowledging the reviewer's role in the peer review process. This can be presented to institutions or employers as proof of academic service.

Confirmation Letter: Reviewers can request a personalized confirmation letter, further validating their contribution to the journal.

These initiatives aim to build a sense of appreciation, motivating reviewers to continue contributing their expertise to the academic community.