Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers are integral to maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing. They are expected to provide objective, thorough, and constructive evaluations of manuscripts, focusing solely on the academic merit, originality, and relevance of the work. Personal biases or conflicts of interest must never influence their judgment. Journal Port Science Research (JSPR) uses double blind peer review in its reviewing system.

Confidentiality is paramount. Reviewers must treat manuscripts as privileged information, refraining from sharing or using any content for personal or professional gain before publication. All communication regarding the manuscript should remain strictly between the reviewer and the editorial team.

1. How peer reviewers are selected and trained

Peer reviewers are typically chosen based on their subject expertise, research background, and prior experience in scholarly publishing. Editors rely on databases, personal networks, and journal records to identify suitable reviewers who can provide objective and high-quality evaluations. To ensure fairness, diversity in geographic location, gender, and career stage is often considered. Reviewers must not have conflicts of interest with the authors or institutions involved. Many publishers also adopt systems that track reviewer performance to maintain standards. Selection is therefore guided by transparency, impartiality, and alignment with the manuscript’s subject area. Please refer to Web of Science Academy for online training supporting academics in conducting research with integrity.

2. How many peer reviewers review each manuscript?

JSPR generally assign three reviewers per manuscript to ensure balanced perspectives. Having multiple reviewers allows for diverse expertise, reduces the influence of individual bias, and strengthens editorial decisions. In some cases, such as highly specialized or interdisciplinary submissions, editors may seek additional reviewers for more comprehensive evaluations. Editors retain flexibility, but the underlying goal is fairness, rigor, and reliability in the evaluation process.

The final decision does not rely solely on the number of reviewers but on the quality and consistency of their assessments. Editors may weigh comments differently depending on reviewer expertise and the strength of the arguments presented. In cases of conflicting recommendations, an additional reviewer may be invited, or the editor may make a judgment call based on the evidence. Transparency about review policies helps set realistic expectations for authors. The key principle is that every manuscript undergoes adequate and appropriate scrutiny to safeguard scholarly standards.

3. Responsibilities of reviewers

Reviewers are entrusted with a central role in safeguarding research quality and ethical integrity. They are expected to evaluate manuscripts fairly, confidentially, and constructively, providing feedback that enhances clarity, accuracy, and originality. Reviews should be conducted without bias, discrimination, or personal criticism, and reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest. They must also avoid exploiting privileged information gained during the review process for personal or professional advantage. Confidentiality remains a cornerstone of the process, ensuring respect for the intellectual property of authors.

Reviewers should also help editors identify potential ethical concerns, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or questionable methodologies. Timeliness is critical, as delayed reviews can hinder the publication process and disadvantage authors. Reviewers should communicate promptly with editors if they cannot complete a review within the expected timeframe. They are encouraged to adopt a constructive tone, offering suggestions for improvement rather than only pointing out flaws.

4. How to perform a review and time allowed?

A review should begin with a careful and thorough reading of the manuscript, focusing on originality, methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, and ethical compliance. Reviewers are encouraged to take structured notes, evaluate the manuscript against journal guidelines, and assess whether conclusions are supported by evidence. They should check for proper referencing, adherence to reporting standards, and transparency in data presentation. The review should remain focused on the work itself, not on the authors’ identities or affiliations. Objective analysis ensures fairness and consistency.

The time allowed for reviews typically lasts about two weeks. Timeliness is essential for maintaining efficient editorial workflows and respecting authors’ efforts. If reviewers anticipate delays, they should immediately inform the editor so alternative arrangements can be made. By honoring deadlines and communicating effectively, reviewers contribute to a professional and reliable publication process that benefits both authors and the research community.

5. What reviewers should do if they suspect research or publication misconduct

If reviewers suspect misconduct such as plagiarism, data falsification, duplicate submission, or unethical research practices, they should promptly and confidentially alert the editor. Reviewers must not contact authors directly, as this could compromise confidentiality or interfere with formal investigations. Editors are responsible for evaluating the claim and, if necessary, contacting institutions or other authorities. Reviewers should provide specific evidence or reasoning to support their suspicions, helping editors assess credibility. Silence in such cases risks enabling unethical behavior to persist.

6. How to prepare the review report, who owns the review, and transferability of reviews?

A review report should be structured, clear, and constructive. Reviewers often provide two sets of comments: one confidential for the editor and one directed to the authors. Reports should summarize the manuscript’s strengths, identify weaknesses, and suggest improvements, always using professional and respectful language. Reviewers should avoid vague statements and instead provide specific feedback on methodology, clarity, and ethical considerations. A well-prepared report supports both editors in making decisions and authors in enhancing their work.

Regarding ownership, reviews are considered confidential intellectual contributions shared with the journal. According to COPE, reviewers do not “own” the review in a way that allows independent disclosure, since it forms part of the confidential editorial process. Transferability of reviews may occur under formal agreements. This practice can reduce reviewer fatigue and speed up publication, but it requires transparency and protection of confidentiality. The review process thus balances accountability with respect for reviewer contributions.

7. How decisions on acceptance, revision, and rejection are made

Decisions on manuscripts rest with the JSPR editor, guided by reviewer feedback, journal scope, and ethical standards. JSPR Editors weigh the quality of evidence provided in the reviews, the strength of the manuscript, and its potential contribution to the field. Even when reviews are favorable, editors may request revisions to improve clarity, strengthen methodology, or address ethical concerns. Conversely, a manuscript may be rejected despite positive comments if it falls outside the journal’s scope or lacks originality. Transparency in decision-making ensures trust between authors and the editorial team.

8. Procedures for review of submitted revisions and handling appeals

Revised manuscripts are generally reassessed by the original reviewers, who are best positioned to evaluate whether concerns have been adequately addressed. If reviewers are unavailable, JSPR editors may invite new reviewers while ensuring continuity of the evaluation process. Editors carefully compare revised versions against previous feedback to verify improvements. This iterative process helps ensure that accepted manuscripts meet the highest standards of quality and integrity. Timeliness remains critical, and revised submissions are usually given shorter review deadlines to avoid unnecessary delays.

In the case of appeals, JSPR follows transparent procedures that allow authors to challenge editorial decisions respectfully. Appeals are typically reviewed by an independent editor or editorial board member to ensure impartiality. Authors must provide a clear rationale and supporting evidence for reconsideration. While appeals do not guarantee acceptance, they ensure fairness and accountability in the editorial process. By handling appeals consistently and transparently, JSPR journal demonstrates commitment to integrity while protecting both authors’ rights and editorial independence.