Review Reports

General Instructions

• Prepare reports in English.
• Read the entire manuscript, including supplementary materials, figures, tables, and methods.
• Provide constructive, detailed, and clear comments.
• Maintain a professional and neutral tone—avoid disrespectful or offensive remarks.
• Do not suggest citations to your own work (or colleagues’) unless essential to improve the manuscript.
• Do not use generative AI or LLMs to prepare reviews. Limited AI use for grammar or formatting may be acceptable but must be disclosed. Uploading any manuscript content to AI tools is prohibited.
• Report any suspected misconduct, plagiarism, or unethical practices immediately to the editor.

Content of a Review

A research article review should include:

• A summary of the study’s aim, clarity of objectives, and key contributions.
• Evaluation of methodology—strengths, weaknesses, and limitations.
• Specific comments on writing, structure, figures, and tables.
• Analysis of interpretation and validity of conclusions.
• General comments on scientific soundness, hypothesis testability, and relevance of references.
• Note: Language and formatting issues will be addressed by editorial staff.

Full-Length Review Report Checklist

• Is the manuscript clear, relevant, and well-structured?
• Are references recent, relevant, and balanced (without excessive self-citations)?
• Is the study scientifically sound with appropriate design?
• Are methods reproducible and adequately described?
• Are sampling methods, data sources, and limitations clearly presented?
• Are figures, tables, and data well-presented and interpreted correctly?
• Do conclusions align with evidence?
• Is statistical analysis robust and appropriate (where applicable)?
• Are ethics and data availability statements sufficient?

Review of Review Articles

• Is the review clear, comprehensive, and relevant?
• Does it identify knowledge gaps?
• Is it timely and valuable even if similar reviews exist?
• Are references recent, balanced, and without omissions?
• Are statements and conclusions well-supported by cited sources?
• Are visuals (figures/tables) appropriate, clear, and informative?

Assessing Methodology

• Flag major flaws such as:
  • Unsound or discredited methods
  • Omission of key processes
  • Conclusions contradicting presented evidence
• For analytical studies: assess sampling methods, particularly in time-sensitive research.
• For qualitative studies: check for systematic data analysis, sufficient descriptive detail, and quotes supporting findings.

Rating the Manuscript

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript on the following criteria:

• Novelty: Does it advance knowledge?
• Scope: Is it aligned with the journal’s focus?
• Significance: Are the results meaningful and supported by evidence?
• Quality: Is writing clear, and are data and analyses well-presented?
• Scientific Soundness: Is the design robust and reproducible?
• Reader Interest: Will it engage JCP’s audience?
• Overall Merit: Does it make a significant contribution to the field?

Recommendation Options

• Accept in Present Form: No further changes required.
• Accept after Minor Revisions: Small edits needed; 5 days allowed for revision.
• Reconsider after Major Revisions: Substantial changes needed; up to two rounds allowed, each with 10 days for revision.
• Reject: Manuscript has major flaws, lacks originality, or is unsuitable for publication.

Note: Recommendations are confidential to editors and must be clearly justified.

Final Decision

• The editor makes the final decision on acceptance or rejection.
• Additional reviewer input may be sought if necessary.
• Reviewers are notified of the decision if the system allows.