Guidelines for Reviewers
At Proven Sciences, we rely on the expertise of our reviewers to uphold the academic quality and credibility of our journals. Their evaluations help ensure that only high-quality, relevant, and well-researched articles are published. Below are the key responsibilities and ethical considerations for our reviewers.
Review Process and Responsibilities
- Objective and Fair Assessment
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts solely based on their scientific merit, originality, clarity, and alignment with the journal’s scope, free from any personal bias.
- Timely Submission of Reviews
To maintain an efficient editorial process, reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the given timeframe. If additional time is needed, they should inform the editorial team as soon as possible.
- Constructive and Detailed Feedback
Review reports should provide clear, constructive, and specific comments to help authors improve their work. Criticism should be professional and supported by evidence.
Double-Blind Peer Review
- Objective and Fair Assessment Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts solely based on their scientific merit, originality, clarity, and alignment with the journal’s scope, free from any personal bias.
- Timely Submission of Reviews To maintain an efficient editorial process, reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the given timeframe. If additional time is needed, they should inform the editorial team as soon as possible.
- Constructive and Detailed Feedback Review reports should provide clear, constructive, and specific comments to help authors improve their work. Criticism should be professional and supported by evidence.
Double-Blind Peer Review
Peer Review Process
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief to determine suitability for peer review. The journal follows a double-blind peer review system, where:
- Authors do not know the identities of reviewers.
- Reviewers do not know the identities of authors.
We aim to provide authors with a decision within six to eight weeks from submission.
Proven Sciences follows a double-blind review policy, meaning that:
- The identities of authors and reviewers remain anonymous to ensure an unbiased evaluation.
- Reviewers should not attempt to identify the authors or contact them directly.
- The identities of authors and reviewers remain anonymous to ensure an unbiased evaluation.
- Reviewers should not attempt to identify the authors or contact them directly.
Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct
- Handling of Manuscripts
Submitted manuscripts are confidential and should not be shared, discussed, or used for personal advantage. Reviewers must not disclose any details about the manuscript before its official publication.
- Avoiding Unauthorized Distribution
It is considered unethical to share an unpublished manuscript’s content with colleagues or use any part of it in personal research.
- Handling of Manuscripts Submitted manuscripts are confidential and should not be shared, discussed, or used for personal advantage. Reviewers must not disclose any details about the manuscript before its official publication.
- Avoiding Unauthorized Distribution It is considered unethical to share an unpublished manuscript’s content with colleagues or use any part of it in personal research.
Conflicts of Interest
- Full Disclosure
Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality. This includes personal, professional, or financial relationships with the authors or the study’s subject matter.
- Declining a Review Assignment
If a reviewer recognizes a conflict of interest, they should inform the editorial office and decline the review to maintain the integrity of the peer-review process.
- Full Disclosure Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality. This includes personal, professional, or financial relationships with the authors or the study’s subject matter.
- Declining a Review Assignment If a reviewer recognizes a conflict of interest, they should inform the editorial office and decline the review to maintain the integrity of the peer-review process.
Guidance for Writing a Review Report
- Scientific Rigor and Methodology
Reviewers should assess whether the research is well-designed, methodologically sound, and contributes to the field. They should highlight any gaps, inconsistencies, or areas that require further clarification.
- Clarity and Presentation
The manuscript should be well-organized, logically structured, and written in clear language. Reviewers should provide recommendations for improving readability and coherence.
Recognition and Benefits for Reviewers
To acknowledge the valuable contributions of reviewers, Proven Sciences offers:
- Certificates of Recognition for completed reviews.
- Acknowledgment on the Journal’s Website for outstanding contributions.
- Opportunities for Editorial Roles for experienced reviewers.
- Scientific Rigor and Methodology Reviewers should assess whether the research is well-designed, methodologically sound, and contributes to the field. They should highlight any gaps, inconsistencies, or areas that require further clarification.
- Clarity and Presentation The manuscript should be well-organized, logically structured, and written in clear language. Reviewers should provide recommendations for improving readability and coherence.
- Certificates of Recognition for completed reviews.
- Acknowledgment on the Journal’s Website for outstanding contributions.
- Opportunities for Editorial Roles for experienced reviewers.