Reviewer Guideline

Reviewer Guidelines for FOTROS Journal Submissions

Purpose of Peer Review The peer review process is integral to the scholarly dissemination of knowledge. It serves to ensure the integrity, quality, and originality of articles published in the FOTROS Journal.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Confidentiality: Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and its review process.
  • Objectivity: Evaluate manuscripts objectively and fairly, without personal bias.
  • Timeliness: Complete reviews within the stipulated timeframe, notifying the journal promptly if unable to do so.
  • Constructive Criticism: Provide clear and constructive feedback to enhance the scholarly value of the manuscript.
  • Ethical Vigilance: Be alert to potential ethical issues, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, and dual submission.

Review Process

  • Initial Assessment: Ascertain the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s scope and standards.
  • Methodological Rigor: Scrutinize the methodology for robustness, validity, and reproducibility.
  • Results and Interpretation: Assess the accuracy, clarity, and significance of the results and their interpretation.
  • Literature Contextualization: Evaluate the manuscript’s contribution to the existing body of knowledge, noting any significant omissions.
  • Recommendations: Conclude with a recommendation for acceptance, revision, or rejection, justifying the decision.

Reviewer Report

  • Summary: Begin with a summary of the article and its main findings.
  • Major Concerns: Detail any significant issues that need addressing.
  • Minor Concerns: List minor concerns that would improve the manuscript.
  • Overall Evaluation: Provide an overall assessment of the manuscript’s suitability for publication.

Ethical Considerations

  • Conflict of Interest: Disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence the review.
  • Intellectual Property: Respect the intellectual property rights of the authors.

Feedback to Authors

  • Clarity: Ensure feedback is clear, concise, and actionable.
  • Respect: Communicate critiques respectfully and professionally.
  • Specificity: Reference specific sections, lines, or data points when discussing issues or suggesting improvements.

Post-Review

  • Follow-up: Be available for follow-up questions or to review revisions if requested by the journal.
  • Continual Improvement: Participate in reviewer training and development opportunities to maintain high standards of review.

These guidelines are designed to uphold the highest standards of scholarly review and to assist reviewers in providing thorough, fair, and insightful evaluations of submissions to the FOTROS Journal. Reviewers play a crucial role in the advancement of academic discourse, and adherence to these guidelines is greatly appreciated.