For Reviewers

Make a real impact

Introduction

We begin with our vision towards sound impact for articles, so we ensure the quality and accuracy of the research we publish on our platform. Peer review plays a critical role in achieving our vision by making a difference and maintaining research integrity. Luminous Insights created these guidelines to manage the peer review process; the reviewer can learn about their contributions and facilitate their experience.

    Become a reviewer on Luminous Insights

    The authors and editors in Luminous Insights need sufficient specialist knowledge to evaluate manuscripts and provide a constructive review. Participation in the peer review process can enhance your career and improve your research experience. Do not hesitate to request to become a reviewer; we look forward to expanding the pool of reviewers and building on your expertise.

    Peer review produces high-quality research with a real impact

    The originality, strength, and quality of research mean relevant science. Peer review helps filter out high-quality and eliminate invalid articles. An effective peer review process means strong journals with a global reputation. Peer review supports editors in highlighting the structure, methods, and techniques used in research papers; and the data that support conclusions and recommendations. It helps if editors can read and understand your comments. All this necessarily improves the quality of the published papers. Rigorous peer review is a powerful incentive for authors to produce high-quality research papers. We support improving peer review efficiency by providing guidance and best practices for peer reviewers, introducing contemporary methods and innovative models. Furthermore, allowing researchers to perceive the evaluation of their papers. The emphasis continues on transparency and accountability to ensure appropriate procedures and recognizing the contributions of reviewers and editors. Peer review is a human activity. Articles may contain inaccurate information. Even after it is published, it can be rejected and published elsewhere. However, we do not skip the process; Mistakes can be worse without it.

    Ethical Responsibility

    You need to agree to the review when you have experience evaluating manuscripts and submitting the review report on time. Also, declare that you are unbiased in the evaluation and do not have a conflict of interest. All authors or researchers who have experience in ethical publishing can consider becoming a peer reviewer as part of professional responsibilities. With our peer review guidance, we help you place your experience in peer review.

    If you want to be our reviewer, we encourage you to provide the journals with your personal and contact information and accurate professional information. Editors will match the scope of the manuscript with your expertise to obtain the best possible reviews. Luminous Insights refuses to impersonate others when providing personal information as this is considered serious misconduct and does not comply with all international ethical standards.

    It is a professional norm to respond to calls for peer review within a reasonable time. When you are unable to review, inform the editor. When you accept peer review, this means that you are qualified to referee the manuscript, provide an unbiased evaluation, and will perform the revision within the suggested timeframe.

    Your conditions may change and be incapable of fulfilling the peer review. You may need to extend the time required to conduct the evaluation. You should contact the editor to request additional time if possible. You can recommend alternative reviewers in the same field of the manuscript. Be sure not to bias based on personal considerations or attempt to influence their decision. Do this quickly to avoid delay in the evaluation process.

    You should not agree to the review if you feel there is a conflict of interest. You must declare all potential conflicts of interest. The Interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious (See conflict of interest policy). Share competing or potential interests with the editor. Do not accept reviewing a manuscript without viewing or checking, nor for authors working in your organization in which you work or leaving it for less than three years. Finally, we give you these tips when you receive a peer-review invitation:

    1. Read the research abstract attached to the invitation carefully; so that you can determine if the research is within your interest and experience, and respond promptly to the invitation.
    2. Show integrity, keep confidential the contents of the manuscript you are reviewing, report conflicts of interest, and do not agree to the invitation for personal gain.
    3. Look at the conclusion first because it will give you a good idea of ​​whether the research providing exciting contribution and development in its field.
    4. Focus on the quality of the research, not the author.
    5. Less time commenting on the English language quality if the author is a non-native English speaker. Refer only to elements that could change the meaning.
    6. Do not be afraid to give credit if the paper is perfect and is an excellent addition to the existing literature.
    7. Keep the focus within the scope of the paper and do not deviate from its original topic.

    Remember, your review purpose is to help the author improve the paper. Be constructive in providing judgment even if you will recommend rejection in the end.

    If the author's contribution is obvious, make sure the facts, evidence, and statistics are dependable. Follow structured methods of commenting to help the editor make an appropriate decision. Use the numbering of comments and their division into sections to also help the author make corrections. Use different documents for Comments directed to the author and those to the editor. Additionally, reviews should be consistent with your recommendations. Take the time to read and comment on the manuscript.

    Your role as a reviewer

    When you receive an invitation to review a manuscript, the editor will tell you what they want you to see. Editors need your experience and recommendations to help them decide whether to accept or reject a paper. The letter of invitation for review may involve a full evaluation or a specific aspect such as the methodology or statistics. It is good practice in reviewing to mention what you are going to evaluate. Sometimes the editor knows that this paper is not in your field of profession, but they do request an evaluation for a specific aspect in which they think you have enough experience. You can contact the editor to inquire.

    To help the editor make the right decision, you need to be clear about critical points. Send structured and numbered comments to the editor. Provide suggestions on how authors should address any concerns raised, and ensure that specific recommendations for correcting mistakes are welcome by editors and helpful to authors.

    Your comments should clarify the problems and should not differ from your recommendations. For example, your comments should not be positive if you are recommending rejection of the paper. A decision that Contrasts could put the editor in an inconvenient position if they seem to disagree with your recommendation or comment.

    There are author comments that have a place, and there are also comments for editors that the authors should not see. Make sure the Editors' Comments space not shown to authors. Finally, the editor will rely on your recommendations and comments, but it is worth noting that the editor's decision will not always correspond to your decision, so do not be mention it in the comments sent to the author.

    Often, most research papers are reviewed one time by two or three reviewers, as it is not uncommon to accept for publication without changes. Exceptionally, we may ask you to review a revised paper. The invitation email will include the reason the editor requested this review. The editor will attach the reviewers' previous comments and the report that highlights the changes made by the author in his revised manuscript. This revised review aims to ensure the author has made the changes requested by the previous reviewers. You should not raise additional problems. Respect the comments of the previous reviewers and the efforts towards improvement conducted by the authors.

    Note that your review of the revised manuscript should be relatively quick and that you will only focus on proving that the required changes and how the author responded to those changes. Ensure that the purpose of your review of the revised manuscript is to ensure that the paper is of a publishable standard.

    Conducting a review

    What must do before starting the evaluation

    1. 1- Read the manuscript adequately
    2. 2- Read the supplementary data files and supporting materials carefully.
    3. 3- Understand the scope of the review before beginning to evaluate the manuscript.
    4. 4- Check the required references' guidance
    5. 5- Be sure that you have read the journal's policies, the publisher code of connection, conflicts of interest, data, and others (return to the journal if that is not clear).
    6. 6- The articles have blinded, but if you received the author's information in the wrong way, contact the editor, and we also advise you not to communicate with the authors to request or complete information.

    Consider confidentiality

    1. 1- Read the data and disclosure policy to avoid any potential violation of information confidentiality.
    2. 2- Avoid using the information you receive to obtain your benefit or the benefit of others.
    3. 3- Respect the privacy of others and the confidentiality of the peer-review process.
    4. 4- Do not use the information you obtain to harm others or discredit them.
    5. 5- It is not permissible to involve other referees in reviewing the manuscript, including the students you supervise or direct. You can include the names of people who helped with the review process in a private letter to the editor or the review report to arrange appropriate acknowledgment for their efforts.

    Conflict of interest and bias

    1. 1- Read the Conflicts of Interest Policy, Code of Conduct well.
    2. 2- Inform the journal and the editor when any conflict of interest appears to you or when you discover a competing interest that prevents you from providing a fair and unbiased review.
    3. 3- Do not review if you discover that you are unable, incapable, or lacking the experience necessary to evaluate the entire manuscript.
    4. 4- Report if you doubt author identity as this may stimulate competition or potential conflict of interest.

    Violating research and publishing ethics

    1. 1- If you suspect a violation of research and publishing ethics, inform the journal or editor immediately. Or you can call Ethics and Compliance.
    2. 2- Report cases of misconduct when writing the manuscript or citing or when submitting it. Or when noticing the simultaneous submission of the to another journal.
    3. 3- Do not undertake the investigation yourself. Just inform us and cooperate with the journal.

    Cascading peer review

    We may ask to evaluate a manuscript that you previously reviewed. It occurs when an author submits a previously rejected manuscript from another journal or the same journal. Or that the author re-submitted it to the same journal again after making corrections. You must be different in your evaluation because the new submission is different, or perhaps the journal criteria have changed after the first submissions. To ensure transparency, submit your previous and latest reviews, making sure to obtain permission from the original journal, and noting that you have previously reviewed the manuscript, highlight the changes made to the new submission.

    Peer review report

    1. 1- Commitment to submit the review report at the suggested date.
    2. 2- Review and prepare the report yourself and not involve anyone else without permission from the journal.
    3. 3- If you cannot evaluate the entire manuscript, mention the aspects you reviewed and inform the editor.
    4. 4- Submit your suggestions based on sound academic or technical reasons.
    5. 5- Be specific in your criticism, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to support the data to assist editors in their decision.
    6. 6- Be objective and constructive in your reviews, and provide comments that help authors improve their manuscripts.
    7. 7- If there are some missing analyses or questionnaires, remember that you are not required to extend the work outside its current scope. Only check the quality and accuracy of the work. If the work is unclear due to a missing investigation, you should post comments and explain additional analysis that clarifies the submission.
    8. 8- Not to make any negative or unfair comments or unjustified criticism of any competing work mentioned in the manuscript. Be a professional and refrain from being hostile or seditious and making defamatory or offensive comments or baseless accusations.
    9. 9- Do not make your report lengthy, prolong, or lengthen the review process.
    10. 10- Do not request unnecessary information from the authors or journal.
    11. 11- Do not ask authors to cite your works or the works of others.
    12. 12- Avoid bias towards the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
    13. 13- The recommendation for acceptance, rejection, or revision of the manuscript should be consistent with your comments. It should also correspond to the report that you send to the editor. Although the authors will not see the comments you send to the editor, they should not be defamed or false accusations.
    14. 15- Follow the journals' instructions, coordination, and evaluation forms. Use the tools provided by the journal.
    15. 16- Use coherent language and style. Try to be sensitive to language issues when authors are not writing in their first language. Draft comments appropriately and in a more standardized format, with an emphasis on due respect.
    16. 17- We do not prefer editors to evaluate manuscripts. However, if no other reviewer is available, then the editor does the review. Disclosure and transparency must be observed and not under the guise of additional anonymous reviewers.

    We keep manuscript details and information not disclosed later reviewing even to the people who control or direct it. We ask that you acquire prior permission from the journal if you wish to use the peer review that you have conducted to educate and mentor your students. We would also like to inform you that Luminous Insights can provide appropriate support to those seeking peer-review training. Reviewers, editors, and editorial boards can refer to membership of the COPE Committee (https://publicationethics.org/). For further ethical advice for peer reviewers, you can visit their website, and you can download, maintain and share the guidance file as necessary. Luminous Insights is committed to ensuring integrity in the peer review process, respecting the confidentiality of peer review, and not disclosing any details of manuscripts or related communications during or after the peer-review process other than what the journal has published. We also expect all peer reviewers to adhere to the COPE Ethical Peer Review Guidelines (https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers

    Guide to reviewing a manuscript

    To review manuscript

    Manuscript review steps guidelines

    Follow the steps below to help you review your manuscript. Decide if you want the review to take place and send your approval quickly to avoid delaying the review process. Include your letter about potential conflicts. The email invitation will include the research abstract, specify whether you want to conduct the review or not.

    Review report

    Luminous Insights Journals follow a standardized body of review report. While we ask you to address specific questions through a questionnaire that includes various features, we do not lose sight of our desire for you to present your advanced review style that reflects your experience. We ask you to read the journal instructions and requirements to help you build your review structure.

    Upon receiving the invitation to review

    When you receive the invitation to review, the abstract will give you a first impression of the objectives, Keys to data, conclusions, and recommendations. When you are reading the manuscript, you will keep in mind that you will evaluate the essential question addressed in the research and whether it is relevant or interesting. How original is the topic, and does it add to scientific knowledge in the same field or compared to other published materials? Has the author constructed the theoretical background well, and does he agree with the academic consensus, or does he have a core issue? You will also evaluate the clarity, readability, and whether the paper is well written. Do tables and figures add to the research and aid in understanding, or are they unnecessary? Finally, do the conclusions address the essential question posed in the paper, and are concluding consistent with the evidence and arguments presented in the theoretical framework?

    The first reading of the paper will save you from discovering some potential flaws. You can put your notes on some problems ahead of time. Examples of defects that might face after the first reading include drawing conclusions that disagree with the statistical or qualitative analysis, the use of a research methodology or a study instrument that is discredited, or ignoring tools known to have a strong influence or that have an academic agreement in the same topic or area of ​​study. You have to evaluate whether or not the methodology is sound, as this is a big flaw.

    During the first reading, you may also consider the sampling method, the accuracy of the data collection process, and the appropriate use of experiments. You may also check the sampling timing and the validity of the questions and use a detailed methodology. If the study is experimental, you have to examine the method of data analysis, and if the research is qualitative, it will focus on the sufficiency of descriptive elements and appropriate quotes from interviews or focus groups.

    It is good to examine the information presented in tables, figures, or pictures. It is better to take a look to ensure the adequacy of the data, differences of statistical significance, clarity of data, contradiction or compatibility with conclusions, repetition of confirmatory data unless the researcher provides strong arguments for such. If there are flaws in this, your decision will likely be to reject the manuscript. Write down grounds for rejection, supporting evidence, and citations if necessary. Even if you think the article has serious flaws, be sure to read the entire article. It is very critical because you might find some positive aspects that can communicate to the authors. It can help them with future submissions.

    First reading report

    The first reading report also includes a conceptual overview of the research contribution, and is the paper interesting and valuable? Are the methods used appropriate, and do the data support the conclusions? In this report, you can determine whether the submission is in principle publishable and deserving of detailed and accurate reading.

    The first reading report should include the successful aspects of the paper so that the author understands what he has done well. Then, move on to the main flaws that it found. The report should speak out the key question addressed by the research, objectives, approach, and conclusion. Did the researcher deliver the main message to the reader? Was the researcher able to achieve what he decided to do?

    The Second Read

    When moving to the detailed reading, make sure that your goal is to help prepare the manuscript for publication. Perhaps you will decide to refuse after the second reading. Your focus will be on the scientific contribution to the knowledge base. Therefore, you have to provide clear recommendations for how authors deal with the concerns you raised, not just mentioning flaws.

    Do not write the pros and cons of the manuscript document only. Use line numbers for your notes to make the items easier for the editor or author to find in a separate file.

    Keep in mind that you will check the construction of the argument. You will determine which places the meaning is not clear or ambiguous, are there factual errors or invalid arguments. Should you focus on the title, and does it reflect the topic of the paper properly? Does the abstract provide smooth access to the content? Do the keywords accurately reflect the content? Is the study problem accurate and clearly expressed? Finally, is the length of the paper appropriate?

    You will also check the language; if the paper contains many editing and English language problems that prevent understanding the main message from it, do not try to fix it, you may have rejected it after the initial reading. Language and editing quality is the authors' responsibility, and yours is to ensure the text meaning is clear. You can suggest improvements if the errors are few and do not affect the understanding of the content. But do not spend time polishing the grammar or dictation since it is rare to pass the review without linguistic or spelling corrections.

    Manuscript review construction

    Title and abstract evaluation

    You can evaluate the title and abstract after reading the entire manuscript. A weak summary may cause the reader to lose interest and may not go any further than title reading. Evaluating summary should focus on highlighting the principal findings and presenting the data, relevant recommendations, and whether the keywords express the actual content.

    Introduction evaluation

    The introduction should give a precise idea for the target readers about the manuscript’s novelty and objectivity. Did the author define the argument and summarized recent researches? Did he highlight the gaps in understanding or discrepancies in current knowledge?

    How does the researcher justify the need for investigations in the subject area? Has the researcher proven originality and objectivity? Did he provide new information, or is it just a confirmation of known results? Did the introduction include goals? Are they clear and understandable? Finally, do the research objectives need improvement?

    Assessment of the body of the manuscript (theoretical background, design, methods, and tools)

    Did the research follow quality practices? If the search fails to reach relevant best practice criteria, it is usual to recommend rejection. Did the research paper include sound analyzes and reproducible methods? Are the tools used or the sampling methods described in detail? If not, you may ask the author to review the methodology. Are the methods used to ensure data reliability adequate, and is there bias. Finally, are the ethical standards sustained in the research?

    Evaluation of results and discussion

    This section should explain what was discovered or confirmed. This section should be written in a coherent, narrative style and discloses the data presented in simple terms. The author should indicate the statistical or qualitative analyzes; The quality of connection and explain the relevance of the findings to achieving a broader understanding by linking them to published research. Consider if the author provides a critical analysis of the data, describes and discusses the overarching story developed. If you notice inconsistencies and gaps in the story, you should ask that those gaps be addressed and suggested ways to advance the research.

    Conclusion evaluation

    Usually, this is a separate section that reflects the objectives and conclusions, whether achieved or not and based on evidence. If not, ask for rewriting.

    Evaluation of figures, tables, and charts

    You will evaluate the accuracy of the information in the figures, tables, and charts, the plausibility of the results, whether they support the paper's discussion and conclusions, the adequacy of the data to support the trends described by the author. The extent of your ability to distinguish the story through it. Request improvements if you cannot understand the figures, tables, and charts. You should reject the manuscript if it appears to you that there is an image-editing or manipulative display of data.

    Reference list evaluation

    You will check the accuracy and formatting of the references. Also, consider whether the quotes are appropriate. You may suggest improving if the citations are weak. Or if they are inappropriate or not recent unless they are necessary to rooting a specific idea. Besides, emphasis should be placed on ease of reference retrieval and keeping in mind that references are fair to compete authors. Ensure that the researcher has not over self-citation and achieved the required balance in the reference list.

    Plagiarism

    Editors check for plagiarism initially before sending the manuscript for you to review. However, suspicions of plagiarism may appear during a peer review, when you have concerns about plagiarism, or when the similarities in the research with other papers are high that render the research non-original, you will have no choice but to recommend rejection of the manuscript. You have to refer to this similar research in your report. If there is plagiarism or falsification, but you cannot remember the exact stolen, you can report it to the editor and ask for guidance. Luminous Insights follows COPE's ethical guidelines, and you can also review our editorial policies. If we discovered plagiarism after publication, we are obligated to retract the publication.

    The structure of the review report

    Luminous Insight follows a formal report format with a set of questions followed by a comments section. We ask you to answer all questions, and you will have access to the structure of the review report after agreeing to the evaluation.

    When writing in the comments section, be sure that your review is crucial to the author to improve his article, so you should be clear, honest, objective, and constructive in your comments. Use uncomplicated or common words so that non-native speakers of English understand you and do not confuse native speakers. Use numbering for comments, avoid narration over long paragraphs, and finally, refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments.

    Don't use the official report to send confidential comments to editors. This space is intended not for reporting misbehavior such as plagiarism, falsification, fraud, unethical actions, frequent publishing, other disputes, conflicts of interest, or otherwise. If you wish to send confidential comments, criticisms, or questions, you can do so in a separate report to the editor.

    Recommendation for Editors

    We will ask you to select a recommendation (Accept, Reject, Review, Resubmit) in the fixed selection list. Don't make simple or just short comments. If a review recommends, try to provide suggestions for improvement that you feel the author should provide, and number the suggestions, so that the author can respond to each point. When recommending rejection with the possibility of re-submission, make specific and precise suggestions to help the author get another opportunity.

    When recommending rejection, ensure that the manuscript contains serious flaws that justify this judgment. Provide detailed and helpful comments to help the editor make his decision. Concentrate on the research rather than the author; the advice for rejection should include constructive recommendations, so he or she can understand the reason behind his manuscript rejection. Finally, try to be as perspicuous as possible and provide comments that are consistent with the decision.