General Guidelines for Reviewers

Invitation to Review

Manuscripts submitted to Hilltopub journals undergo review by at least two experts, who may be volunteer reviewers, members of the Reviewer Board, editorial board member, or reviewers suggested by the academic editor during the initial check. Reviewers are tasked with assessing the manuscript's quality and providing a recommendation to the external editor regarding acceptance, revisions, or rejection.

We kindly request invited reviewers to:

- promptly accept or decline invitations upon reviewing the manuscript title and abstract;

- propose alternative reviewers if they must decline an invitation;

- notify us as soon as possible if an extension is needed to provide a comprehensive report.

 

Potential Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers are asked to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and to contact the journal Editorial Office if uncertain about whether a situation constitutes a conflict of interest. Examples of conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to):

- Reviewer affiliation with the same institute as any of the authors;

- Reviewer having academic ties such as co-authorship, collaboration, joint grant holdings with any of the authors within the past three years;

- Reviewer having personal relationships, rivalries, or antipathies with any of the authors;

- Reviewer potentially gaining or losing financially from the publication of the paper;

- Reviewer having any other non-financial conflicts of interest (political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, commercial, etc.) with any of the authors.

 

Reviewers should disclose conflicts of interest that might be perceived as bias for or against the paper or authors. It's important to note that assessing a manuscript previously reviewed for another journal does not constitute a conflict of interest. In such cases, reviewers are encouraged to inform the Editorial Office about any improvements or lack thereof compared to the previous version.

Reviewers are also encouraged to familiarize themselves with the relevant guidelines in the Ethical Guidelines For Peer Reviewers by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 

Declaration of Confidentiality

Hiltopub journals operate a single- or double-blind peer review process. Until publication, reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript content, including the abstract. Reviewers should avoid disclosing their identity to the authors, both in their comments and in metadata for reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format. Reviewers must notify the Editorial Office if they wish for a colleague to complete the review on their behalf (ensuring that the colleague meets the criteria outlined in Reviewers’ Profile).

Hilltopub journals offer authors the option to publish review reports alongside their paper (Open Peer Review), and for reviewers to sign their open peer review reports once "Open Peer Review" is selected by the authors. However, this will only occur at publication with the reviewer's consent. Otherwise, review reports are considered confidential and will only be disclosed with explicit permission from the reviewer.