Peer Review Guidelines

Peer Review Guidelines for Communication in Physical Sciences

The peer review process is a critical part of ensuring the quality and integrity of the research published in Communication in Physical Sciences. The journal follows a double-blind peer review process, meaning that both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review.

Below are the detailed guidelines for reviewers.

  1. Confidentiality

All manuscripts sent for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not discuss or share the manuscript with anyone outside the journal’s editorial team. Information obtained during the review process should not be used for personal advantage or shared with others.

  1. Impartiality and Objectivity

Reviewers should provide an objective evaluation of the manuscript. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. The review should be constructive, offering feedback that can help improve the manuscript while ensuring that the research is evaluated on its merit and contribution to the field.

  1. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the time frame requested by the editorial office. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they should notify the editor as soon as possible to arrange an extension or suggest an alternative reviewer.

  1. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • Originality: Does the manuscript offer novel insights or advancements in the field? Is it sufficiently innovative?
  • Relevance: Is the manuscript aligned with the aims and scope of the journal? Does it contribute to its specific area of research?
  • Methodology: Are the research methods and experimental designs sound and appropriate for the study? Are the procedures described in sufficient detail to allow replication?
  • Results and Discussion: Are the results clearly presented, well-analyzed, and appropriately interpreted? Are the conclusions justified by the results?
  • Ethical Standards: Has the manuscript adhered to ethical guidelines, especially concerning studies involving human or animal subjects?
  • References and Literature: Is the manuscript well-referenced, drawing upon relevant and current literature in the field? Are citations accurate?
  • Clarity and Structure: Is the manuscript well-organized, with clear and concise writing? Does the structure follow the journal’s guidelines (Title, Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, References)?
  1. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should be alert to any ethical issues related to:

  • Plagiarism: Reviewers should check if the manuscript has been plagiarized from other works.
  • Multiple Submissions: If the manuscript has been submitted to more than one journal, this should be reported to the editor.
  • Data Fabrication or Manipulation: Reviewers should notify the editor if they suspect any form of data fabrication or manipulation.
  1. Reviewer's Report

The review should be submitted through the journal’s online system or sent directly to the editorial office. The report should include:

  • A summary of the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses.
  • A recommendation to the editor:
    • Accept(with or without minor revisions)
    • Revise and Resubmit(major revisions required)
    • Reject(due to significant issues in the research, methodology, or originality)
  • Constructive feedback to the authors to help them improve their work.
  1. Recommendation

Reviewers should not make the final decision about the manuscript’s publication. Their recommendation is advisory to the editorial team, who will make the final decision based on the reviews, the scope of the journal, and the manuscript’s overall contribution.

  1. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should declare any conflict of interest that might bias their review, including any relationship with the authors or competitive research interests. If a conflict of interest is present, the reviewer should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.

  1. Post-Review Revisions

If the manuscript is returned to the authors for revisions, the revised version may be sent to the same reviewers for a second review to ensure that the necessary changes have been made.

  1. Final Decision

The final decision on a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviewers’ recommendations and the manuscript's suitability for the journal.

For questions or clarifications, reviewers can contact the editorial office at okon.nnabuk@unn.edu.ng.