Reviewer Responsibilities and Guidelines

Confseries is dedicated to an equitable and streamlined peer-review process, employing a single-blind method where the reviewer can see the author’s identity, but not vice versa.

We extend our sincere appreciation to our reviewers, whose dedication and thorough evaluations are essential to transforming initial submissions into high-quality, impactful publications.

Role and Importance of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on subject-matter expertise and may be suggested by authors or identified through database searches. Their comments significantly shape editorial decisions after a collective discussion with the editorial board.

Their objective evaluations help refine the quality, clarity, and impact of submitted research. Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive feedback and highlight both strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.

Confidentiality and Objectivity

Unpublished manuscripts are strictly confidential and must not be shared. Reviews must be impartial, focused on improving scientific content, and free from personal remarks. Any form of data fabrication, plagiarism, or ethical concerns should be reported exclusively to the editor.

Sensitive issues like conflicts of interest or previous publication history should be directed only to the editor. Feedback on scientific merit, clarity, novelty, and relevance should be shared with both the editor and the author.

Ethical Conduct

Reviewers are required to recuse themselves in cases of conflict of interest. Evaluations should be confidential, ethical, courteous, and clearly supported by valid reasoning.

Key Evaluation Criteria

A quality review should assess the following:

  • How well the article fits within the scope and interests of the journal's readers.
  • Consistency across all sections: title, abstract, keywords, and conclusions.
  • Clarity and replicability of methods.
  • Adequacy of control and statistical analysis.
  • Proper citations and literature support.
  • Ethical approvals and participant consent where required.
  • Accuracy, originality, and novelty of data and findings.
  • Elimination of redundant material in text, tables, or figures.
  • Suggestions on structure, length, and presentation.

Review Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

  • Acceptance
  • Minor or major revisions
  • Rejection

All assessments must be rooted in the scientific value of the manuscript, with clear supporting arguments. Reviewers are expected to offer guidance on improving the manuscript’s presentation and overall contribution through targeted feedback.