Reviewer Guideline

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers play a crucial role in ensuring the quality and integrity of research published in SRLS. We appreciate your valuable contribution to the peer review process. Here are the guidelines for reviewers:

Peer Review Process:

  1. Participation and Cooperation: Authors are required to participate in the peer-review process fully. They should promptly respond to editors' requests for raw data, clarifications, and documentation related to ethics approval, patient consent, and copyright permissions.

  2. Response to Revision Requests: If a manuscript receives a decision of "Minor or Major revisions," authors should respond systematically and in a timely manner to the reviewers' comments. They are expected to revise and resubmit their manuscript by the provided deadline. Failure to do so without proper explanation may result in the removal of the submitted paper, and no further papers from the corresponding author will be accepted in the future.

  3. Reviewer Responsibilities:

    • Prompt Decision: Reviewers are encouraged to accept or decline review invitations quickly, based on the manuscript's title and abstract.
    • Suggesting Alternatives: If an invitation must be declined, reviewers are welcome to suggest alternative reviewers who may be suitable.
    • Request for Extension: Reviewers may request an extension if additional time is needed to prepare a report.
  4. Review Assessment: Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript based on various criteria, including originality, significance, presentation quality, scientific soundness, interest to readers, overall merit, and the level of English proficiency.

  5. Check for Self-Citations: Reviewers are expected to check the manuscript's reference list for inappropriate self-citations.

  6. Recommendation and Report: Reviewers provide an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript. Additionally, they should offer a detailed, constructive review report.

Potential Conflicts of Interest:

Reviewers are responsible for informing the journal editor if they have any conflicts of interest that may bias their review report, whether positively or negatively. The editorial office will make efforts to check for conflicts before inviting reviewers. Reviewers who are invited to assess a manuscript they previously reviewed for another journal should not consider this as a conflict of interest per se. In such cases, reviewers are encouraged to inform the journal whether the manuscript has improved compared to the previous version.

Confidentiality and Anonymity:

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript, including the abstract. If reviewers need to delegate the review to a colleague, they should inform the Editorial Office. Reviewers will have access to other reviewers' reports through the online submission system after submitting their own report.

Timely Review Reports:

To provide an efficient and high-quality publishing service, we ask reviewers to submit their review reports in a timely manner. If an extension is needed, please contact the editorial office to request an extension to the review deadline.

Peer-Review and Editorial Procedure:

SRLS conducts a thorough peer-review process. After an initial check by the Managing Editor, an editorial board member is assigned as the paper's editor. The editor assigns the paper to different external reviewers, and the review process proceeds with at least two review reports. The editor makes a decision based on the reviewers' comments and sends it to the Editor-in-Chief. The final decision is made by the academic editor (usually the Editor-in-Chief, an Editorial Board Member, or a Guest Editor for Special Issues). Accepted articles undergo copy-editing and English editing.

If reviewers become aware of scientific misconduct, fraud, plagiarism, or any unethical behavior related to the manuscript, they should report these concerns to the editor immediately. Your diligence in upholding research integrity is greatly appreciated.