Review Guideline

The reviewers have a vital role in maintaining the quality and integrity of a manuscript submitted into the Sinteza. Therefore, Sinteza made a guide for reviewers as recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Things considered are:

  • Professionally responsible
  • Objective
  • Punctuality in reviewing

During the review process, the reviewers must pay attention to the following points:

  1. Initial steps: Read the manuscript, supplementary data files (if any), and supplementary material thoroughly (if any), return to the journal if anything is unclear, and ask for anything incomplete that you need to the journal.
  2. Confidentiality: Respect the confidentiality of the review process and refrain from using information obtained during the review process for the Reviewer's benefit or others or to harm or discredit others. Do not involve others in a manuscript review without first obtaining permission from the journal.
  3. Bias and interests: Reviewers must act reasonably, objectively, and not be racist. If Reviewers do not match the manuscript assigned by the editor, the reviewer should inform the editor about it so that other reviewers review it in their respective fields.
  4. Suspicion of ethical violations: Please inform the journal if the reviewer discovers an irregularity concerning research and publication ethics. For example, the reviewer may have a concern that an error occurred during research or writing and submission of a manuscript or may notice substantial similarities between the manuscript and concurrent submissions to other journals, or published articles or other ethical concerns, the reviewer must contact the editor directly about this and do not attempt to investigate for reviewer self. It is appropriate to cooperate with the journal but not personally investigate further unless it requests additional information or advice.
  5. Review diversion: If the reviewer has reviewed an article in another journal and was rejected and sent to the Sinteza, the reviewer should review the manuscript again. Because the manuscript may have been improved, and the reviewer already knows the manuscript's shortcomings beforehand.

Before commenting, there are a few things to note:

  1. Format: Follow the journal's instructions for commenting. If a specific scoring format or rubric is required, use the tools provided by the journal. The reviewer should be objective and constructive in commenting, providing feedback that will help authors improve the author's manuscript. Be professional, avoid being hostile or inflamed, and avoid making personal comments that defame or insult the author.
  2. Appropriate feedback: Remember that editors need a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of a manuscript's strengths and weaknesses. The reviewer should recommend whether the manuscript is accepted/revised/rejected; each recommendation must match the comments given in the review. Make sure review comments and recommendations to the editor are consistent with the report to the authors.
  3. Language and style: use a language and writing style that the author and editor can understand.
  4. Suggestions for further work: The reviewer should provide suggestions if something is wrong or missing in the manuscript so that the author will add the information that they are referring to.

Accountability:

  1. Do not make negative comments that are unfair or include unjustified criticism.
  2. Do not suggest authors include citations to the reviewer's (or co-workers') work to increase the number of citations or increase your or your colleagues' work; suggestions must be based on valid academic reasons.
  3. Do not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of the review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or author.