Scholar Publishing Academy
Reviewer Guidelines
I. Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to review a manuscript for the Scholar Publishing Academy. Your expertise and careful evaluation are essential to our commitment to publishing high-quality, original and impactful research.
This document outlines the review process and provides guidance on evaluating manuscripts.
Please adhere to the deadlines provided in your invitation.
II. Before You Begin
1. Conflict of Interest: Before reviewing, carefully assess potential conflicts of interest (e.g., collaboration with the authors, competing research, financial ties). If any conflicts exist, immediately inform the handling editor and decline the review.
2. Time Commitment: Evaluate the time required to conduct a thorough review given the manuscript's length and complexity. If you anticipate difficulties meeting the deadline, inform the handling editor as soon as possible.
3. Access: Access the manuscript and other relevant materials through the Scholar Publishing Academy's online submission system. The system should provide tools for annotation and comment submission.
III. The Review Process
1. Initial Assessment: Begin by reading the manuscript's abstract, introduction, and conclusion to understand the authors' overall aims and findings.
2. Detailed Review: Review and assess the manuscript comprehensively based on the following criteria. Your assessment should include specific examples from the manuscript to support your evaluation.
Our journals and editors prioritize three main criteria: significance, originality and rigor (SOR).
o Significance and Originality: Does the research address a significant problem or gap in the field? Is the research question novel and original? Does the study make a substantial contribution to knowledge?
o Methodology and Rigor: Is the methodology clearly described and appropriate for the research question? Are the methods rigorous, reproducible, and ethically sound? Are the data collection methods appropriate and well-justified? Are any limitations of the methodology clearly acknowledged?
o Data Analysis: Are the data analysis methods appropriately chosen and correctly applied? Are the statistical analyses correctly performed and interpreted? Are the results clearly presented and accurately described?
o Results: Are the results clearly presented and well-interpreted? Do the results support the authors' claims and conclusions? Are there any inconsistencies or unexplained findings?
o Discussion and Conclusion: Does the discussion appropriately interpret the results and relate them to previous research? Are the conclusions justified by the data and analysis? Are the implications of the research adequately addressed?
o Clarity and Writing: Is the manuscript well-written and easy to understand? Are the tables and figures clear, informative, and accurately labelled? Is the language professional and free of jargon or grammatical errors?
o Overall Quality: Considering all factors, assess the overall quality and impact of the manuscript. Does the manuscript meet the Scholar Publishing Academy's standards for publication?
3. Overall Recommendation: Provide a clear recommendation for the manuscript (Accept, Reject, or Revise). If recommending revision, provide detailed and constructive feedback to help the authors improve the manuscript. Clearly distinguish between major and minor revisions if recommending revision.
o Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication without significant changes.
o Reject: The manuscript has significant flaws and is not suitable for publication in its current form. Provide a detailed explanation for your rejection recommendation.
o Revise: The manuscript requires revisions before it can be considered for publication. These could be minor or major. Provide detailed and actionable feedback for the authors, specifying changes needed and offering suggestions for improvement.
4. Review Submission: Submit your completed review within the designated deadline using the Scholar Publishing Academy's online system. Your review should be detailed, objective, and respectful.
IV. Additional Considerations
· Ethical Concerns: If you suspect any ethical misconduct, such as plagiarism or data fabrication, immediately report this to the handling editor and editor-in-chief.
· Confidentiality: Keep the manuscript confidential. Do not share it with anyone outside the review process.
· AI Tools: Do not use AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) to assist in the review process. The review must be based solely on your independent judgment and expertise. If the use of any AI is suspected your review will be retracted and you might face a reviewer ban depending on the severity of the case. All suspected cases will be referred to and reviewed by the SPA’s ethical committee. SPA highly prioritizes human reviewers. Please refer to the Ethical Issues section.
V. Reviewer Support
The Scholar Publishing Academy values your contributions and is available to assist you. If you have any questions or concerns, contact the handling editor.
This guideline ensures a consistent and high-quality peer-review process for the Scholar Publishing Academy. Regular updates and revisions of these guidelines are expected.