Guidelines for Reviewers
“We extend our deepest gratitude to all scholars who dedicate their time and expertise to peer-review articles submitted to Erudexa Publishing journals. Rigorous, impartial peer review is the absolute backbone of high-quality academic publishing.”
To honor this vital contribution, Erudexa Publishing releases a bi-annual Reviewer Recognition List, publicly acknowledging the scholars who uphold the integrity of our scholarly record.
1. Peer Review & Editorial Procedure
Peer review ensures that Erudexa Publishing maintains the highest international standards. All manuscripts submitted to our journals are strictly and thoroughly evaluated by independent experts.
Upon submission, the Editorial Office conducts a technical pre-check. The manuscript is then assigned to an Academic Editor who performs an initial assessment. If the manuscript passes this stage, it enters our strict double-blind peer review process. This means the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are concealed from each other to ensure absolute impartiality.
The Editorial Office secures at least two independent review reports per manuscript. Authors are required to make sufficient revisions before a final decision is executed by the Academic Editor. Accepted manuscripts then proceed to internal copyediting and final production.
2. Profiles & Responsibilities
The role of the reviewer is critical. Every reviewer is expected to evaluate manuscripts in a timely, transparent, and ethical manner, strictly adhering to COPE Guidelines.
Reviewer Criteria:
- Hold a PhD or an equivalent terminal degree.
- Maintain an official, recognized academic or institutional affiliation.
- Possess a proven publication record in the field of the submitted paper (verifiable via ORCID, Scopus, or WoS).
- Have no institutional affiliations with any of the authors.
- Have no co-publication history with the authors in the past three years.
3. Reviewer Benefits
Reviewing is a crucial yet often unrewarded task. Erudexa Publishing is committed to tangibly recognizing the efforts of our reviewers through the following benefits:
APC Discount Vouchers
For every manuscript rigorously reviewed, the reviewer may receive a discount voucher applicable to the Article Processing Charge (APC) of a future submission to any Erudexa journal.
Official Certification
Reviewers receive a personalized, verifiable Reviewer Certificate detailing their academic service, suitable for institutional promotion and tenure dossiers.
Global Recognition
Reviewers are eligible for the Bi-Annual Exceptional Reviewer List and the Erudexa Top 100 Reviewers award, publicly announced across our platforms.
Editorial Promotion
Consistently excellent reviewers may be invited by the Editor-in-Chief to formally join the journal's prestigious Editorial Board.
4. The Reviewer Board & Academic Service
The Reviewer Board (RB) consists of experienced researchers whose primary responsibility is to actively support our journals by providing high-quality, transparent reports. The initial term is one year, subject to renewal.
RB Members commit to reviewing a minimum of six manuscripts per year. If unavailable to accept an invitation, they are expected to recommend alternative experts. In return, RB Members are formally listed on the journal’s masthead and receive an official Reviewer Board appointment letter.
Scholars wishing to volunteer their expertise to the Reviewer Board may formally apply via the Erudexa Careers Page.
5. Comprehensive Review Guidelines
To assist our reviewers in delivering structured, ethical, and high-impact evaluations, we have detailed our specific guidelines below. Please expand each section for full instructions.
Invitation & Conflicts of Interest
Responding to Invitations
We kindly ask invited reviewers to accept or decline invitations promptly based on the manuscript’s title and abstract. If declining, suggesting alternative reviewers is highly appreciated. If more time is required to provide a comprehensive report, please request an extension from the Editorial Office.
Conflicts of Interest in Double-Blind Review
Because Erudexa operates a double-blind review process, reviewers will not initially know the authors' identities. However, if a reviewer deduces the authorship and realizes a conflict exists, they must immediately declare it and recuse themselves. Conflicts include:
- Working at the same institute as the deduced authors.
- Having co-authored or collaborated with the authors in the past three years.
- Possessing a close personal relationship, rivalry, or direct financial interest related to the publication.
Confidentiality & Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Strict Confidentiality
Reviewers must keep the content of the manuscript completely confidential until publication. Furthermore, reviewers must not reveal their identity in their comments or metadata to preserve the integrity of the double-blind process.
Policy on Generative AI and LLMs
Reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading manuscripts, in whole or in part (including figures and data), into Generative AI tools or Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT. Doing so is a direct violation of our confidentiality and data privacy agreements.
Reviewers are solely responsible for the content of their reports. Limited use of AI solely to refine the grammar or structure of the reviewer's own written report is acceptable, but must be disclosed upon submission.
Structuring the Review Report
Review reports must be written in clear English and maintain a neutral, constructive tone. Derogatory comments are strictly prohibited.
Report Components
- Brief Summary: A short paragraph outlining the aim of the paper, its main contributions, and its strengths.
- General Comments: Highlight areas of weakness, methodological inaccuracies, or missing controls. Focus strictly on scientific content.
- Specific Comments: Refer to specific line numbers, tables, or figures to point out inaccuracies.
Note: Reviewers must not recommend excessive citations of their own work (self-citations) or honorary citations meant solely to inflate metrics. Suggested references must genuinely improve the manuscript.
Rating & Final Recommendation
Evaluation Metrics
During evaluation, please rate the manuscript on Novelty, Scope, Significance, Quality, Scientific Soundness, and English Level.
Final Recommendations
- Accept in Present Form: The manuscript is ready for publication.
- Minor Revision: The manuscript is acceptable pending small, clearly defined corrections.
- Major Revision: Acceptance depends on substantial revisions, which will undergo a second round of review.
- Reject: The manuscript has serious, unfixable flaws or makes no original scientific contribution.