For reviewers
Reviewer Guidelines
What the Journal of Current Scientific Research asks of a peer review — what to settle before accepting, what to assess in the manuscript, the questions each kind of study turns on, and how to write a report an author can act on and an editor can decide from.
Reviewers advise; the handling editor decides. A review that says clearly what it can and cannot judge is more useful than one that covers everything vaguely.
- Review model
- Single-blind by default
- On request
- Double-blind review
- License
- CC BY 4.0
Before you accept
Four questions- ExpertiseYou can assess a substantial part of the manuscript. Accept for the part you can judge and tell the editor which part that is — in a journal that publishes across fields, an editor needs to know precisely what your review covers so the rest can be covered by someone else.
- Competing interestsNo shared institution, recent collaboration, co-authorship or funding relationship with the authors, and no commercial interest in a product, material or system evaluated in the work. Declare anything a reader might reasonably see as a conflict and let the editor judge it.
- TimeYou can return the review within the agreed period. If you cannot, decline promptly so the editor can invite someone else. Suggesting an alternative reviewer when you decline is a substantial help.
- ConfidentialityYou accept that the manuscript is confidential, and that it stays so whatever the outcome.
Confidentiality and conduct
The termsA manuscript under review is confidential. Do not share it, discuss it outside the review, or use its content, data or ideas in your own work before publication.
Ask the editor first. A co-reviewer, including a trainee, may take part only with the editor's agreement and is named in the report.
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
Address the work, never the authors. A criticism worth making can always be made without disparagement.
Recommend a reference only where the manuscript's argument needs it. Do not require citation of your own work as a condition of a favorable review.
What to assess
The manuscript| Element | The question to answer |
|---|---|
| Scope and contribution | Does the work make a meaningful, assessable scientific contribution? All scientific disciplines are eligible; illustrative domain lists are not exclusions. |
| Question and design | Is the question stated clearly, and can this design answer it? |
| Methods | Are the methods, assumptions or scholarly reasoning documented well enough for expert assessment and appropriate reproduction? Apply requirements according to the study design. |
| Measurement | Where the work reports measurements, are units, calibration, uncertainty and instrument limits appropriate? For formal, computational or qualitative work, assess the corresponding proof, validation or analytic transparency. |
| Controls and comparators | Are the controls the argument depends on present, and is the result measured against something that reflects current practice or knowledge? |
| Analysis | Are the statistical or computational methods appropriate, with uncertainty reported and multiplicity handled? |
| Results | Do the results follow from the methods, and is everything reported that the methods promised? |
| Interpretation | Do the conclusions stay within what the results establish, and is any proposed mechanism distinguished from plausible alternatives? |
| Limitations | Are they specific to this work, and do they include the ones that bear on the main claim? |
| Ethics and approvals | Are applicable approval or exemption, informed consent or an approved waiver, registration, permits and de-identification stated and consistent with the described method? |
| Reporting and data | Is the applicable reporting guideline followed, and do the data, code and materials statements name a location and an access process? |
| References | Is the literature represented fairly, and is anything essential missing? |
Questions each kind of study turns on
By designUse the group that matches the manuscript. A question that does not apply to the design in front of you can be passed over; one that applies and is unanswered is worth raising as a major point.
Type I
Experimental and laboratory studies
- Are materials, reagents and their grade specified where they affect the result?
- Are instrument configuration and calibration reported?
- Are replicates identified as technical or biological, with the number given?
- Is the negative control the claim depends on present?
- Are detection limits and measurement uncertainty stated?
- Is characterization sufficient to establish identity and purity?
- Are deviations from a published protocol declared?
- Do the figures represent the data without selective processing?
Type II
Computational, modeling and machine-learning studies
- Are the model formulation and boundary conditions stated?
- Is the input data described with source, period and preprocessing?
- Was the train, validation and test split made at the right unit?
- Could any feature encode the outcome, or its timing?
- Is there a comparator — current practice, an established method, a simpler model?
- Are the metrics appropriate to the task, reported with uncertainty?
- Is there verification against a benchmark or analytical solution?
- Is sensitivity analysis given over the parameters the conclusion rests on?
- Could another team reproduce this from what is reported?
Type III
Clinical, population and human-participant studies
- Is ethics approval or an applicable exemption documented with its basis and responsible authority, and is informed consent or an approved waiver documented?
- Is an interventional trial registered, with the number and date given?
- Are the setting, recruitment period and eligibility criteria stated?
- Is the sample size justified, and is participant flow reported?
- Is missing data handled and its handling described?
- Are prespecified outcomes distinguished from exploratory analyses?
- Could any individual be identifiable, including in supplementary files?
- Does the conclusion stay inside the population actually studied?
Type IV
Field, environmental and observational studies
- Is the site described with period, sampling design and sufficient location information, while protecting sensitive locations from conservation, privacy, cultural or security risks? Are any location restrictions and appropriate access arrangements explained?
- Are instrument deployment and calibration history reported?
- Are sample handling, storage and chain of custody described?
- Are analytical detection limits, blanks and recovery reported?
- Are permits and access approvals stated where they are required?
- Are confounding environmental variables addressed?
- Is the observational record archived somewhere a reader can reach?
- Does the interpretation match the temporal and spatial coverage of the data?
Type V
Reviews, syntheses and data descriptors
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: are the question, eligibility criteria, complete searches and dates, selection, extraction, risk-of-bias assessment and synthesis methods reported consistently with PRISMA?
- Scoping reviews: are the purpose, eligibility, searches, selection and data-charting methods reported consistently with PRISMA-ScR? Assess critical appraisal if undertaken; it is not required for every scoping review.
- Narrative and critical reviews: are the purpose, literature-selection approach, critical reasoning, supporting evidence and limitations clear? Do not require systematic searching or formal risk-of-bias assessment unless the review claims that methodology.
- For a data descriptor, are collection method, structure and formats described?
- Is the dataset validated, and are its limitations stated?
- Are the repository, identifier, version and license given?
- Does the synthesis draw conclusions the included evidence supports?
Perspectives and scientific case studies
Use the reporting guidance in Instructions for Authors where applicable: CARE for clinical case studies, SPIRIT for randomized clinical trial protocols, PRISMA-P for systematic review protocols, and SRQR or COREQ for appropriate qualitative designs. For a Perspective, assess the clarity and substance of the scholarly argument, its use of relevant evidence and its limitations; new experimental data are not required. For a Scientific case study, assess the question, case selection and context, systematic methods or evidence, interpretation, ethical safeguards and contribution beyond anecdotal description. Do not require statistical generalization or a fixed number of cases where the study design does not support it.
Writing the report
Structure- SummaryTwo or three sentences on what the work does and what it contributes, so the editor and the authors can see you read it as intended.
- Major pointsNumbered, each identifying the problem, where it is in the manuscript, and what would resolve it. Separate what must be fixed from what would strengthen the paper.
- Minor pointsNumbered, for specific corrections and clarifications.
- RecommendationAccept, minor revision, major revision, or decline — consistent with the report. A recommendation to decline is supported by the major points, and a recommendation to accept is not accompanied by unresolved ones.
- Confidential comments to the editorAnything the editor needs and the authors should not see — a suspected duplicate, an integrity concern, or the limits of your own expertise on part of the manuscript.
The most useful review is specific. "The statistics are inadequate" cannot be acted on; "the confidence intervals for the primary comparison in Table 3 are missing, and the subgroup analysis in Section 3.4 is not adjusted for multiplicity" can.
Suspected misconduct
Where you suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation, fabricated data or an undisclosed conflict, do not raise it with the authors. Report it in the confidential comments with the evidence you have, and leave the investigation to the editor.
What happens to your review
The handling editor weighs the reviews against the evidence in the manuscript rather than counting recommendations, and conveys the substance to the author with the decision.
Reviewing for this journal
Editorial officeResearchers working across all scientific disciplines are welcome to offer to review. Write to the editorial office with your ORCID iD and the subjects you can assess.
Published by Open Access Pub. ISSN 2766-8681 (electronic). Crossref DOI prefix 10.14302. Articles are published open access under CC BY 4.0; authors retain copyright. Peer review: Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Editorial decisions are independent of any fee, service, membership or role. Editorial office: [email protected].