Guide for Reviewers
Peer review is the principal procedure in which the quality of a manuscript is judged. Manuscript reviewers play an important role to helping IJLEAL publish excellent, informative and inventive articles for the benefits of IJLEAL readers and authors. All manuscripts sent to IJLEAL will be sent for a double-blind review, and IJLEAL relies upon the knowledge and expertise of its reviewers to decide which manuscripts will be published.
Both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous, which may prevent reviewer bias.
Instructions to the Reviewers
When invited to review, reviewers should:
1. Ensure that their areas of expertise cover the topic of the manuscript.
2. Decline the invitation if the manuscript’s topic is different.
3. Decline the invitation if there is a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the author(s), companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Once a reviewing task is accepted, reviewers should ensure that:
1. Information regarding manuscripts submitted by author(s) should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information.
2. Reviews are conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author(s).
3. Relevant published works that have not been cited are identified and suggested to the author(s). Any statements that had been previously reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
4. Any substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under consideration and any other published papers of which they have personal knowledge are brought to the attention of the editors.
5. A manuscript is reviewed within the stipulated time. In case, if the reviewer feels that it is not possible for him/her to complete the review within the stipulated time, it must be communicated to the editors, so that the manuscript could be sent to other reviewers.
6. Complying with the editors’ written instructions on the journal’s expectations for the scope, content, and quality of the review.
While reviewing, reviewers should:
1. Comments critically and constructively with the goal of helping the authors identify their manuscripts’ strengths and weaknesses.
2. Provide an overall opinions and specific comments and suggestions.
3. Express their views clearly.
4. Make direct reference to the specific areas of the manuscript which are being commented.
Reviewer Ethical Responsibilities
We summarise reviewers’ ethical responsibilities as:
• Contribution to editorial decision
• Constructive critique
• Promptness and responsiveness
• Disclosure and conflicts of interest