Reviewers’ Guidelines
JNRSP does not enforce a strict format for review reports, but a suggested structure to follow includes the following sections:
- Brief Summary – Outline the central themes and findings of the manuscript.
- Major Issues – Highlight critical points or concerns that need addressing.
- Minor Issues – Note smaller edits or adjustments for improvement.
Reviewers are welcome to expand on this structure as they see fit to address the manuscript thoroughly.
- Accepting or Declining the Review Invitation
If, for any reason, a reviewer feels unable to effectively assess the submission—whether due to time constraints, lack of expertise, or potential conflicts—it is greatly appreciated if they respectfully decline the invitation to review. Timely responses allow the editorial team to assign a new reviewer promptly. This courtesy is essential to keeping the review process efficient and effective.
- Providing a Comprehensive Review
The review report should be an in-depth critique that goes beyond a few short remarks. Reviewers are encouraged to provide insights, evaluations, and questions that can aid in refining the work. Feedback should be constructive and specific, especially when recommending revisions, to guide authors in enhancing their manuscript.
- Supporting Authors with Constructive Feedback
An effective review aims to help authors strengthen their work. Offer clear, actionable advice where revisions are advised, and if possible, provide examples or references to improve clarity. Constructive feedback can significantly contribute to the manuscript's development.
- Confidential Comments to the Editor
If there are comments the reviewer wishes to keep confidential, these can be added in the "Confidential Comments to the Editor" section. Reviewers should use this space thoughtfully for concerns that may not be suitable for direct author feedback but are essential for the editor's consideration.
- Language and Grammar Considerations
Reviewers are asked to assess the clarity and readability of the English language in the manuscript. If substantial editing is needed, please inform us; however, please avoid rejecting a submission solely due to language issues. Editors may facilitate additional language support if needed.
- Rejecting a Submission
When recommending rejection, please provide a few clear reasons. Identify the primary weaknesses and, where possible, suggest potential areas for further exploration, referencing relevant literature. Specific feedback can be invaluable for the authors in reshaping their research.
- Access to Review Form
The review form template, along with instructions, can be downloaded from the JNRSP review platform. This document aims to streamline the review process and ensure all essential points are covered.
Confidentiality of Manuscripts
All manuscripts under peer review are strictly confidential. Reviewers should not share or discuss any part of the manuscript's content with individuals outside the peer review process. If consultation with a colleague from your research group is necessary, please contact the JNRSP editorial team or the Editor-in-Chief for approval. Make sure to document the names of any consulting colleagues in the "Comments to the Editor" section to maintain transparency.
Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers should avoid assessing a manuscript if they:
- Hold a financial interest in the research topic or findings.
- Have prior discussions regarding the manuscript with its authors.
- Feel they cannot provide an impartial review due to any reason.
Disclosing potential conflicts upfront is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the review process.
Thank you for your time and expertise in contributing to JNRSP's commitment to quality research.
