Information Reviewers

Information for Reviewers

This applies to all journals under Factors Academic Press, including Science Factors.

I. Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Peer reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the scientific quality, integrity, and credibility of publications under Factors Academic Press.

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, evidence-based evaluations
  • Assess the scientific validity, originality, and significance of submissions
  • Identify strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement
  • Support editorial decision-making through clear recommendations

Reviewers must approach each manuscript with professionalism, impartiality, and academic rigor.

II. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

All manuscripts under review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must:

  • Not share, discuss, or distribute the manuscript with others
  • Not use unpublished data for personal research
  • Not attempt to identify or contact the authors
  • Not disclose their identity unless explicitly permitted

If consultation with a colleague is necessary, prior approval from the editor must be obtained.

III. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline assignments if any conflict of interest exists, including:

  • Personal or professional relationships with authors
  • Institutional affiliations that may bias judgment
  • Financial or competitive interests related to the work

Full transparency is required to ensure fairness in the review process.

IV. Review Criteria and Evaluation Standards

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

1. Originality and Novelty

  • Does the work present new and meaningful contributions?
  • Is the research question significant and relevant?

2. Scientific Rigor and Methodology

  • Are methods clearly described and appropriate?
  • Are experiments reproducible and statistically sound?

3. Results and Interpretation

  • Are results presented clearly and logically?
  • Are conclusions supported by data?
  • Is there any overinterpretation or unsupported claim?

4. Structure and Clarity

  • Is the manuscript well-organized and coherent?
  • Is the language clear and academically appropriate?

5. Relevance and Impact

  • Does the study contribute to its field or interdisciplinary research?
  • Is it suitable for publication within the journal scope?

V. Reviewer Report Structure

Reviewers must submit their evaluation through the online system using a structured format.

1. Summary of the Manuscript

A brief overview of the study, including its purpose and main findings.

2. Major Comments

  • Significant issues affecting validity, interpretation, or clarity
  • Methodological concerns
  • Requests for additional data or analysis

3. Minor Comments

  • Language corrections
  • Formatting issues
  • Minor clarifications

4. Confidential Comments to the Editor

(Optional)

  • Recommendation (accept, revise, reject)
  • Concerns not suitable for authors

VI. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers must select one of the following:

  • Accept without revision
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject

Recommendations should be supported by clear and detailed reasoning.

VII. Timelines and Responsiveness

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Accept or decline invitations promptly
  • Submit reviews within the specified deadline
  • Inform editors immediately if delays occur

Timely reviews are essential for maintaining an efficient publication process.

VIII. Professional Conduct and Communication

Reviewers must:

  • Provide constructive and respectful feedback
  • Avoid personal criticism or inappropriate language
  • Focus on improving the quality of the manuscript

Critical evaluations should remain objective and professional.

IX. Recognition and Contribution

Factors Academic Press recognizes the essential contribution of reviewers in advancing scientific research. Reviewer performance may be evaluated based on:

  • Quality of reports
  • Timeliness
  • Consistency

Outstanding contributions may be formally acknowledged.