We appreciate the efforts and time of our reviewer who has contributed during the publication process of an article. It is reviewer’s efforts that assist authors to enhance and develop their articles, and ensure the high quality of the published articles. Despite the efforts are often paid silently, we are striving to recognize the efforts of all our reviewers.
1. Benefits for Reviewers
Reviewing for MRE Press journals brings the following benefits:
- Personalized reviewer certificate of recognition.
- A discount voucher of 0–100 USD which will entitle you to a reduction in the Article Processing Charge (APC) of your future submission to the journal.
- Getting to know the latest developments and ongoing research in your field.
- Reinforcing your critical thinking skills essential to research.
- Enhancing your scholarly, research and teaching skills.
- Improving your reputation and increasing your exposure to key figures in the field.
2. Reviewers Responsibilities
MRE Press adopts double-blind peer review. The role of the reviewer is vital and bears a great responsibility in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. Every reviewer is expected to perform manuscript evaluation in a timely, transparent, and ethical manner, following the COPE guidelines.
To ensure a thorough evaluation of each manuscript, our reviewers who accept to review a manuscript are expected to:
- Have the necessary expertise to judge the scientific quality of the manuscript;
- Provide quality review reports and remain responsive throughout the peer review process;
- Maintain standards of professionalism and ethics.
3. General Guidelines for Reviewers
Potential Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers should inform the journal editor if they have a conflict of interests that may prejudice the review, either in a positive or negative way. The editorial office will check for potential conflicts before the invitation is sent, however we appreciate the cooperation of reviewers in this matter. Reviewers who are invited to review a manuscript they previously reviewed for another journal should not consider this as a conflict of interest. In this case, reviewers should feel free to let us know if the manuscript has been improved or not compared to the previous version.
Confidentiality and anonymity
If you accept our invitation to be a reviewer, you should know that all unpublished manuscripts are confidential documents, including the abstract, pictures, table, or any kind of contents in the manuscript. The manuscript under review cannot be revealed to anyone other than the peer reviewers and the editorial staff. Reviewers cannot share any information about the manuscript with anyone without prior authorization from the journal editors. During the review process, if you want to discuss the manuscript with a colleague, please remind them of the confidential nature of the paper and acknowledge their input in your review. You are welcome to encourage your colleagues to register as our reviewers.
Reviewers must inform the Editorial Office if they would like a student or colleague to complete the review on their behalf. If you have encountered any problem, please contact the editorial office.
MRE Press operates a double-blind peer review. Reviewers should be careful not to reveal their identity to the authors, either in their comments or in metadata for reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format.
Timely review report
Reviewers should complete their recommendations to the authors on time, so that we can publish the author’s paper as quickly as possible.
We are dedicated to provide service to authors and to the scientific community with efficiency and high quality. We ask the reviewer’s assistance to provide their reviews in a timely manner. Please contact the editorial office if you require an extension to the review deadline.
4. Instructions for your review
Before you begin
Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:
► Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality review.
► Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.
► Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work – before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.
► Do you need to find out more about reviewing and the peer review process? If so, please consult the editorial office.
Respond to the invitation as soon as you can (even if it is to decline) – a delay in your decision slows down the review process and means more waiting for the author. If you do decline the invitation, it would be helpful if you could provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.
Managing your review
How to log in and access your review
Your review will be managed via an online submission system. To access the paper and deliver your review, click on the link in the invitation email you received which will bring you to the submission/reviewing system. If you have difficulties while accessing the paper, please email the editor or the Editorial Office of the journal.
When you are ready to write the review, make sure you familiarize yourself with the journal guidelines (these will be noted in the journal’s instructions for authors available on the journal’s homepage). First read the article. You might consider spot checking major issues by choosing which section to read first. Below we offer some tips about handling specific parts of the paper.
If the manuscript you are reviewing is reporting an experiment, check the methods section first. The following cases are considered major flaws and should be flagged:
a). Unsound methodology
b). Discredited methods
c). Missing processes known to be essential in the area of reported research
d). A conclusion drawn in contradiction to the statistical or qualitative evidence reported in the manuscript
For analytical papers examine the sampling report, which is mandated in time-dependent studies. For qualitative research make sure that a systematic data analysis is presented and sufficient descriptive elements with relevant quotes from interviews are listed in addition to the author’s narrative.
Research data and visualizations
Once you are satisfied that the methodology is sufficiently robust, examine any data in the form of figures, tables, or images. Authors may add research data, including data visualizations, to their submission to enable readers to interact and engage more closely with their research after publication. Please be aware that links to data might therefore be present in the submission files. These items should also receive your attention during the peer review process.
Critical issues in research data, which are considered to be major flaws can be related to insufficient data points, statistically non-significant variations and unclear data tables.
Experiments including patient or animal data should be properly documented. Most journals require ethical approval by the author’s host organization. For more information, please see Editorial policies.
If you don’t see any major flaws, take a break from the manuscript, giving yourself time to think. Consider the article from your own perspective. When you sit down to write the review, again make sure you familiarize yourself with journal guidelines (these will be noted in the journal’s guide for authors).
Structuring your review
Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. It will also aid the author and allow them to improve their manuscript. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any remarks or personal details including your name. Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgement so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data and evidence. If you need to use a large number of mathematical symbols or formulas in the comments, you can upload the attachment (Word or PDF) to submit your comments.
Making your recommendation
When you make a recommendation, use the categories the editor will use for classifying the article:
► Accept in Present Form (without any further revision.)
► Reject (explain your reasoning in your report.)
► Accept after Minor Revisions (the manuscript is in principle accepted after a minor revision based on the reviewer’s comments.)
► Reconsider after Major Revisions (The acceptance of the manuscript depends on the revisions. Please indicate to the editor whether you would be happy to review the revised article.)
a) Manuscripts with the following characteristics may be accepted:
(1) Important and novel topic;
(2) Interesting results;
(3) Innovative original manuscripts or forward-looking and instructive review;
(4) Major scientific advances;
(5) In-depth analysis and scientific connotation;
(6) Other reasons.
b) Reason for rejection:
(1) Not suitable for the journal;
(2) Methods and results are not credible, or have basic errors;
(3) Not sufficient explanation of the results;
(4) Minor research progress;
(5) Low academic value;
(6) Poor writing;
(7) Other reasons.
You need to submit a review report with your recommendations included about the manuscript before the deadline. Bear in mind that there will be the opportunity to direct separate comments to both the editor and author. Once you are ready to submit your report, consult the editorial office if you encounter any difficulties.
The final decision
The editor ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the article. The editor will weigh all views and may call for another opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision. The submission system provides reviewers with a notification of the final decision, if the journal has opted in to this function.
After your review
Once you have delivered your review, your reviewing activities will be automatically captured. Your profile will display your reviewing history and demonstrate your input to the peer review process as well as detailing your own articles, positions and editorial work. Do not forget that, even after finalizing your review, you must treat the article and any linked files or data as confidential documents. This means you must not share them or information about the review with anyone without prior authorization from the editor.
5. Peer-Review and Editorial Procedure
1) Preliminary review: before peer review, the editorial office may preliminary review all manuscripts and reject manuscripts that are not novel or not matched with the aims and scope of the specific journal. The relevant editor (the Editor-in-Chief/Editorial Board Member of a journal or the Guest Editor of a Special Issue) will also make a pre-check.
2) Peer review: a manuscript will be reviewed by at least two reviewers. The peer review process will help editors make better decisions.
3) Editor decision and revision: in cases where only minor revisions are recommended, the author is usually requested to revise the paper before referring to the external editor. Articles may or may not be sent to reviewers after author revision, dependent on whether the reviewer requested to see the revised version and the wishes of the relevant editor who made the final decision. Apart from in exceptional circumstances, we allow a maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript.