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Unpublished manuscripts are strictly confidential and must not be shared.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 Revisions
- Major Revisions
- Rejection
The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form or requires only minimal editorial corrections. The study presents original, well-supported findings, clear methodology, and significant relevance to the journal’s scope. Reviewers should highlight the strengths that justify acceptance.
The manuscript is fundamentally sound but requires limited changes, such as improving clarity, updating references, refining figures or tables, or addressing minor methodological issues. Reviewers should specify the exact points needing attention.
The manuscript has potential but requires substantial revision before being reconsidered. This may include clarifying experimental design, improving statistical analysis, reorganizing sections, or adding missing data. Reviewers should provide detailed guidance to help the authors strengthen the paper.
The manuscript does not meet the journal’s quality, ethical, or relevance standards. Reasons for rejection may include serious methodological flaws, lack of originality, insufficient data support, or ethical concerns. Reviewers should provide constructive comments to help authors improve the work for possible resubmission elsewhere.
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.