For Reviewers

Peer review is essential to scholarly publishing. It helps us maintain the quality, credibility, and integrity of the research we share. At JourniVision, we use a thorough and independent process for all manuscripts to make sure only original, ethical, and high-quality work is published.

All manuscripts undergo an initial technical check by the Managing Editor. Once formatting, structure, and basic requirements are confirmed, the submission is forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC). The EiC then determines whether the manuscript is suitable to proceed to peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet the required standards are either returned for revision or rejected at this stage.

I. Reviewer Eligibility Criteria

To keep our review process transparent, ethical, and fair, JourniVision follows COPE guidelines and asks reviewers to meet specific standards. Reviewers must:

• Hold subject expertise directly aligned with the manuscript’s topic
• Have a strong publication record and understanding of research methodologies
• Demonstrate objectivity, confidentiality, and ethical conduct
• Provide thorough, unbiased, and constructive feedback
• Meet review deadlines and maintain transparent communication

II. Reviewer Diversity

Diversity helps make our peer review system fairer and more inclusive.

JourniVision aims to choose reviewers from a range of countries, institutions, genders, and fields. This brings balanced perspectives and helps reduce bias, especially in interdisciplinary or new research areas.

III. Peer Review Model

JourniVision uses a double-blind peer review model:

• Reviewers’ identities remain anonymous to authors
• Also, Reviewers cannot see author names and affiliations

This model gives reviewers transparency while protecting them from outside influence or pressure.

IV. Reviewer Selection Process

Choosing qualified reviewers is key to maintaining academic integrity.

• The Editor-in-Chief identifies 3–5 potential reviewers from the journal’s Editorial Board, Reviewer Panel, or established researchers working in similar fields.
• When necessary, the Editorial Office may identify suitable reviewers via databases such as PubMed, Scopus, or Web of Science.
• Only reviewers whose expertise aligns with the manuscript’s scope are invited.
• Typically, two independent review reports are required for a decision; occasionally, a third review may be sought.
• For highly specialized or new topics where reviewers are hard to find, we may use other methods, such as accepting one strong review or asking the Editor-in-Chief for recommendations.

V. Reviewer Recommendations by Authors

Authors may suggest potential reviewers during submission. However:

• All suggested reviewers undergo rigorous evaluation
• The Editorial Office verifies their expertise, independence, H-index, and publication history
• Any conflicts of interest must be declared
• Authors are encouraged to disclose any prior collaboration or relationship with suggested reviewers
• Reviewers with links to authors, shared affiliations, or recent collaborations will not be considered

We consider author recommendations, but they do not guarantee that a reviewer will be chosen.

VI. The Peer Review Process

The Editor-in-Chief and editorial team perform an initial check to confirm:

• Alignment with journal scope
• Compliance with formatting and author guidelines
• Ethical statements and declarations
• Suitability for peer review

Manuscripts that pass this check move on to the reviewer invitation stage.

Invited reviewers receive the manuscript title and abstract to assess:

• Their subject expertise
• Their availability to review within the given timeline
• The absence of any conflict of interest

Reviewers should accept or decline the invitation as soon as possible.

Accepted reviewers receive the whole manuscript and are expected to:

• Maintain confidentiality
• Uphold ethical standards
• Submit their reports within the assigned deadline

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript based on the following:

• Does the manuscript contribute new insights or knowledge?
• Is it within the journal’s scope?
• Is the abstract aligned with the content?
• Are all sections complete, coherent, and logically structured?

• Are they high-quality, clear, and properly cited in-text?
• Do they enhance understanding of the content?

• Is the manuscript well-written and free of grammatical or spelling errors?

• Are citations recent, relevant, and appropriate?
• Does the paper avoid excessive self-citation or irrelevant citations?
• Reviewers should not suggest unnecessary citations to their own work.

• Appropriateness of methodology, study design, and sample size
• Accuracy of data collection and analysis
• Validity and reliability of results

• Is it supported by the data and discussion?

• Ethical approval, informed consent, and data availability statements
• Compliance with relevant regulations for human or animal research

Reviewers should ensure the manuscript adheres to widely accepted reporting standards, where applicable:

• CONSORT – Randomized controlled trials
• TREND – Nonrandomized trials
• PRISMA – Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
• CARE – Case reports
• STROBE – Observational studies
• STREGA – Genetic association studies
• STARD / TRIPOD – Diagnostic accuracy studies
• COREQ – Qualitative research
• ARRIVE – Animal research
• EQUATOR Network – To identify appropriate reporting guidelines

If there are any deviations from these guidelines, reviewers should mention them in their report.

Reviewers must rate each component of the manuscript and provide:

• Comments for authors (shared with authors)
• Confidential comments for editors (not shared with authors)

Reviewers conclude their report with one of the following decisions:

• Accept in present form
• Accept with minor revisions
• Accept with major revisions
• Reject (no resubmission)

If a revised manuscript needs significant changes, the same reviewers may be invited to review it again.

If reviewers notice any ethical concerns or possible misconduct, they should stop reviewing right away and inform the Editorial Office.

VII. Transfer of Articles

Suppose a manuscript is unsuitable due to scope but otherwise scientifically sound. In that case, it may be referred to another journal in the JourniVision network, subject to the agreement of both the author and the receiving Editor-in-Chief.

VIII. Reviewer Benefits

To thank reviewers for their voluntary work, JourniVision offers the following benefits:

• Official Reviewer Certificates will be issued upon completion of the review process
• APC discounts after reviewing a minimum number of manuscripts
• Inclusion (with consent) in the Reviewer Panel on our website
• Eligibility for “Outstanding Reviewer” recognition
• Discounts on language editing and graphical enhancement services
• Potential promotion to the Editorial Board after sustained excellence

IX. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any real or perceived conflict of interest, including:

• Personal or professional relationships with authors
• Shared affiliation or previous co-authorship
• Financial or non-financial interests

If a conflict exists, the reviewer must:

• Decline the review
• Notify the Editorial Office immediately

We follow COPE guidelines and flowcharts for handling undisclosed conflicts of interest, both before and after publication.

If a reviewer wishes to involve a co-reviewer (e.g., a trainee), they must:

• Seek permission from the Editorial Office
• Provide the co-reviewer’s details for eligibility evaluation

Reviewers must not:

• Share manuscript content with unauthorised individuals
• Use unpublished data for personal research
• Reveal author identities
• Cite the manuscript without proper reference (once it is published)

XI. Timelines

Reviewers are expected to:

• Submit their report within 2 weeks of accepting the invitation
• Request an extension if needed
• Notify the Editorial Office immediately if they are unavailable

On average, the review process, including revisions, takes about 3–4 weeks.

XII. Peer Review Misconduct

JourniVision carefully monitors and works to prevent any manipulation of the peer review process.

We follow COPE-recommended protocols and flowcharts for:

• Suspected manipulation during peer review
• Suspected manipulation after publication

Reviewers must not:

• Recommend irrelevant citations
• Request citations to their own work unless scientifically necessary

Suspected cases of citation or peer review manipulation are handled according to COPE’s ethical guidance.

XIII. Reviewer Registration

Researchers who want to join the JourniVision reviewer community can apply by filling out the Reviewer Registration Form. The Editorial Office reviews each profile, and approved reviewers are added to our panel and assigned manuscripts that match their expertise.