Reviewer Policy

Reviewer Policy

At Science Media Research Group (SMRG), we uphold a strong commitment to academic integrity, quality assurance, and constructive peer review. Our Reviewer Policy provides clear guidance to ensure that every manuscript receives an impartial, ethical, and scholarly evaluation.

Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the credibility of the scientific record, and their contributions are central to our mission of advancing knowledge across disciplines.

Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are responsible for critically evaluating submitted manuscripts to assess originality, relevance, clarity, and scientific rigor. Their feedback supports authors in improving their work and assists editors in making informed publication decisions.

• Provide objective, evidence-based, and constructive assessments.

• Highlight strengths and areas requiring improvement.

• Recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection based on scholarly merit.

• Submit reviews within the agreed timeline.

Ethical Standards in Peer Review

Maintain Confidentiality: Treat manuscripts as confidential and do not share or discuss their content.

Avoid Conflicts of Interest: Declare any personal, financial, or professional conflicts and decline review if necessary.

Ensure Impartiality: Evaluate manuscripts without bias related to race, gender, nationality, religion, or institutional affiliation.

Respect Intellectual Property: Do not use unpublished information for personal advantage.

Quality and Constructive Feedback

Reviewers should provide detailed, respectful, and clear feedback. Criticism must focus on the research, not the author(s), and include constructive recommendations such as:

• Clarification of methodology, data interpretation, or analysis.

• Suggestions to strengthen arguments, figures, or references.

• Guidance to improve readability, structure, or language.

Timeliness of Review

• Accept review invitations only if able to meet the timeline.

• Inform editors promptly if an extension is required.

• Decline invitations early if unable to complete the review.

Recognition of Reviewer Contribution

SMRG values the expertise and time contributed by reviewers. We recognize their efforts through acknowledgment letters or certificates upon request, public reviewer listings (with consent), and consideration for future editorial board roles.

Misconduct and Reviewer Accountability

Reviewers who violate ethical standards—such as breaching confidentiality, misusing privileged information, or exhibiting bias—will be removed from the reviewer pool. Serious misconduct may result in notification of the reviewer’s institution.

Commitment to Transparency

Science Media Research Group promotes transparent and fair peer review. While reviewer identities remain confidential, editorial decisions are made with integrity, based on reviewer input, and aligned with international publishing standards.