Reviewer Guidelines

Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific publishing. SCIRP relies on the expertise and judgment of our reviewers to maintain the quality and integrity of the research we publish. We are grateful to the many researchers who volunteer their time and knowledge to support this process.

These guidelines are intended to help reviewers understand what is expected of them, how to conduct a thorough and constructive review, and how to navigate the ethical responsibilities that come with the role.

SCIRP invites researchers who have recognised expertise in the subject area of the manuscript under review. Reviewers should:

• Hold a doctoral degree or equivalent professional experience in the relevant field.
• Have an active publication record in the subject area.
• Be free from conflicts of interest with the submitted work.

If you receive an invitation to review and feel that the manuscript falls outside your area of expertise, please decline promptly and, where possible, suggest an alternative reviewer.

Upon receiving a review invitation, please respond as quickly as possible —ideally within three (3) working days. When deciding whether to accept:

• Confirm that the topic is within your area of active expertise.
• Verify that you have no conflict of interest with the authors or the work.
• Confirm that you can complete the review within the requested timeframe (typically 21 calendar days).

If you are unable to review, declining promptly allows the editor to find an alternative reviewer without unnecessary delay.

All manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential documents. By accepting a review assignment, you agree to the following:

• Do not share, discuss, or disclose the manuscript or its contents with any third party.
• Do not use information from the manuscript for personal or professional advantage prior to publication.
• Do not retain copies of the manuscript after the review process is complete.
• Do not upload any part of the manuscript to AI tools, translation services, or any external platform that may store or process the content.

You should decline to review a manuscript if you have any of the following conflicts of interest:

• A current or recent (within the past three years) collaborative, supervisory, or employment relationship with any of the authors.
• A financial or commercial interest in the outcome of the research.
• A personal relationship with any author that could compromise your objectivity.
• Previous knowledge of the identity of the authors in a double-anonymised review, which could introduce bias.

If a conflict becomes apparent after you have accepted the review, notify the editor immediately.

A high-quality peer review assesses the scientific validity, originality, and significance of the work. We recommend the following approach:

1. First read: Read the manuscript in full to gain an overall impression of the work, its scope, and its contribution to the field.
2. Detailed assessment: Re-read the manuscript critically, evaluating each section against the criteria below.
3. Write your report: Compile your comments in a structured, professional manner.

Key aspects to evaluate:

• Originality: Does the work present new findings, methods, or perspectives? Is it a meaningful contribution to the field?
• Scientific soundness: Are the research design, methodology, and statistical analyses appropriate and correctly applied?
• Data integrity: Are the data presented accurately and completely? Are results clearly supported by the evidence?
• Clarity and structure: Is the manuscript well organised and clearly written? Are the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and conclusions logically presented?
• References: Are citations current, relevant, and correctly formatted? Are important prior works appropriately acknowledged?
• Ethical compliance: Does the work comply with ethical requirements (e.g., IRB approval, informed consent, animal welfare statements)?

Your review report should be constructive, specific, and respectful. It is intended to help authors improve their work and to assist the editor in making a decision.

Structure your report as follows:

• Summary: Briefly describe the aim of the study and your overall impression (2-4 sentences). Do not simply repeat the abstract.
• Major comments: List significant concerns that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. Number each point for clarity.
• Minor comments: List smaller issues such as typographical errors, unclear phrasing, or missing references.

Tone and approach:

• Be specific —vague comments such as "the writing is poor" are not actionable. Identify the exact passages and explain the issue.
• Be respectful —critique the work, not the authors.
• Be constructive —where possible, suggest how the authors might address your concerns.
• Avoid recommending that authors cite specific papers unless the citations are genuinely necessary for scientific completeness.

At the conclusion of your review, you will be asked to recommend one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires small corrections or clarifications that can be verified without re-review.
• Major Revision: The manuscript has significant issues that require substantial revision and re-review before a decision can be made.
• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in this journal due to fundamental flaws in design, originality, or scope.

Your recommendation is advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewers must not use generative AI tools (such as large language models) to produce review reports or to process manuscript content. This prohibition exists for two reasons:

• Uploading manuscript content to an AI service violates the confidentiality obligations described above.
• Review reports must reflect the independent scholarly judgement of the reviewer, not that of an automated system.

Limited use of AI tools for grammar checking of your own written comments is permissible, provided no manuscript content is shared with the tool.

Timely peer review is essential to the efficiency of the publication process and respectful of authors' time. Please:

• Submit your review within the agreed deadline (typically 21 days from acceptance of the invitation).
• Notify the editorial office as early as possible if you require an extension.
• Decline promptly if you are unable to complete the review, so a replacement reviewer can be found.