Reviewer guidelines

Invitation to review

At Genesis Publishing Consortium Limited (GPCL), we hold the peer review process in high regard, recognizing its vital role in upholding the quality and integrity of scholarly publications. As such, manuscripts submitted to GPCL journals undergo a thorough evaluation by at least two experts within the respective fields. These experts may include volunteer reviewers, esteemed members of our Reviewer Board, or individuals recommended by the academic editor during the preliminary check.

We value the contribution of our reviewers immensely and seek their assistance in assessing the manuscript’s quality and providing valuable recommendations to the external editor. To facilitate a smooth review process, we kindly request invited reviewers to adhere to the following guidelines:

Prompt response: Upon receipt of an invitation, please take the time to review the manuscript’s title and abstract promptly. Your timely response allows us to ensure an efficient review process and maintain momentum in the publication timeline.

Alternative reviewer suggestions: In instances where you are unable to accept the review invitation, we encourage you to suggest alternative reviewers who possess the requisite expertise to evaluate the manuscript effectively. Your recommendations enable us to identify suitable replacements and ensure the thoroughness of the review process.

Deadline extension requests: Should you find that additional time is necessary to provide a comprehensive review, we encourage you to request a deadline extension promptly. We understand the importance of conducting a thorough evaluation and are committed to accommodating reasonable requests for extensions to facilitate high-quality reviews.

Declaring potential conflicts of interest (CoI)

Reviewers are crucial in maintaining the integrity and impartiality of the peer review process. To ensure transparency and fairness, we request reviewers to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. These conflicts may include, but are not limited to:

• The reviewer works in the same institute as one of the authors.
• The reviewer is a co-author, collaborator, joint grant holder, or has any other academic link with any of the authors within the past three years.
• The reviewer has a close personal relationship, rivalry, or antipathy to any of the authors.
• The reviewer may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of the paper.
• Reviewer has any other non-financial conflicts of interest, including political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, or commercial affiliations with any of the authors.
• Reviewers should disclose any conflicts of interest that could potentially bias their evaluation of the paper or the authors. Transparency in disclosing conflicts of interest ensures the integrity of the peer review process.

It’s important to note that if reviewers are asked to assess a manuscript they previously reviewed for another journal, this is not considered a conflict of interest. In such cases, reviewers should inform the Editorial Office whether the manuscript has been improved compared to the previous version.

Additionally, reviewers are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the relevant descriptions in the Ethical Guidelines For Peer Reviewers by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). These guidelines provide valuable insights into ethical considerations in peer review, further enhancing the integrity of the review process.

Confidentiality declaration

At Genesis Publishing Consortium Limited (GPCL), we uphold the principles of confidentiality in the peer review process to safeguard the integrity and fairness of manuscript evaluation. As such, we expect reviewers to adhere to the following guidelines:

Confidentiality: Until the article is published, reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript, including the abstract. Reviewers should refrain from disclosing any information regarding the manuscript to unauthorized individuals.

Anonymity: Reviewers should take care not to reveal their identity to the authors during the review process. This includes avoiding any identifying information in comments or metadata for reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format.

Proxy review: Should a reviewer require a colleague to complete the review on their behalf, they must inform the Editorial Office. However, it is essential that the colleague meets the criteria outlined in Section 2 of our guidelines.

In all other cases, review reports are considered confidential, and disclosure will only be made with the explicit consent of the reviewer and authors after the article has been published. We appreciate reviewers’ commitment to maintaining confidentiality, which is essential for ensuring the integrity and credibility of the peer review process at GPCL.

Preparing review report

At Genesis Publishing Consortium Limited (GPCL), we recognize the invaluable role that reviewers play in maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publications. Review reports serve as a cornerstone of the peer review process, providing authors with constructive feedback and assisting editors in making informed decisions. To ensure consistency and effectiveness in the review process, we have outlined comprehensive guidelines for reviewers:

Review preparation

• Review reports must be prepared in English to facilitate communication and understanding among all parties involved.
• Reviewers are expected to meticulously examine the entire manuscript, including any supplementary material. This comprehensive review entails scrutinizing figures, tables, data, and methodologies presented within the manuscript.
• The review should encompass a critical analysis of the article as a whole, delving into specific sections and elucidating key concepts presented by the authors.

Comment detailing

• Reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed comments to ensure authors have a clear understanding of the points raised. Constructive criticism should be the focal point, aimed at facilitating the improvement of the manuscript.
• It is imperative for reviewers to maintain a neutral tone throughout their feedback. Comments should be phrased in a respectful manner, with derogatory remarks strictly prohibited.

Avoiding conflicts of interest

• Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their impartiality in evaluating the manuscript.
• Recommendations for citations should be made solely based on the merit and relevance to the manuscript’s content. Reviewers should avoid suggesting citations of their own work, close colleagues, or affiliations that may introduce bias.

Avoiding the use of AI

To uphold the integrity of the peer review process, reviewers are strictly prohibited from utilizing AI or AI-assisted tools, such as ChatGPT, to review submissions or generate peer review reports. Such practices breach confidentiality and undermine the credibility of the review process.

Standards and guidelines adherence

• GPCL journals adhere to established standards and guidelines, including those outlined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE).
• Reviewers familiar with these guidelines are encouraged to report any concerns regarding their implementation, ensuring that manuscripts adhere to the highest standards of scientific rigor and transparency.

Additional guidance

Reviewers seeking further guidance on writing a critical review are encouraged to consult reputable resources such as the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, “Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice” by I. Hames, and other relevant literature.

Components of review reports

A comprehensive review report should include:

• A brief summary outlining the paper’s aim, main contributions, and strengths.
• General concept comments, highlighting areas of weakness, testability of hypotheses, methodological inaccuracies, and any missing controls.
• Specific comments pinpoint inaccuracies within the text, referencing line numbers, tables, or figures. These comments should focus on scientific content rather than minor spelling or formatting issues.

Guiding questions for review reports         

For research articles: Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript’s clarity, relevance, structure, citation appropriateness, scientific soundness, experimental design, reproducibility, figure/table appropriateness, consistency, and adherence to ethics/data availability statements.

For review articles: Assess the clarity, relevance, identification of knowledge gaps, currency and relevance of citations, coherence of statements, and appropriateness of figures/tables to support the review.

Recommendation guidelines

At Genesis Publishing Consortium Limited (GPCL), we rely on the expertise of reviewers to provide insightful recommendations for the next processing stage of manuscripts. Your recommendation serves as a critical component in the decision-making process. Please consider the following options and provide your recommendation accordingly,

Accept in present form: This recommendation indicates that the manuscript can be accepted without any further changes. It signifies that the manuscript meets the standards for publication and requires no additional revisions.

Accept after minor revisions: This recommendation suggests that the manuscript can potentially be accepted after minor revisions based on the reviewer’s comments. Authors are typically given a timeframe of five days to address these minor revisions.

Reconsider after major revisions: If the manuscript requires substantial revisions to address significant flaws or deficiencies, this recommendation is appropriate. Authors are expected to provide a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments or a rebuttal if certain comments cannot be revised. Normally, a maximum of two rounds of major revisions per manuscript is provided. If the required revision time exceeds two months, authors may be advised to withdraw their manuscript to ensure sufficient time for thorough revision.

Reject: This recommendation is reserved for manuscripts that have serious flaws, fail to make an original contribution to the field, or do not meet the standards for publication. In such cases, the manuscript may be rejected with no offer of resubmission to the journal.

Please note that your recommendation is visible only to journal editors and not to the authors. Decisions regarding revisions, acceptance, or rejections must always be well-justified, taking into account the quality and significance of the manuscript, as well as the reviewer’s comments.

Your thorough evaluation and clear recommendations are instrumental in ensuring the integrity and quality of the peer review process at GPCL. We appreciate your dedication to maintaining the standards of excellence in scholarly publishing.

Useful information for reviewers

The editorial team at Genesis Publishing Consortium Limited (GPCL) journals extends a warm invitation to experts in related fields to contribute their invaluable expertise by reviewing papers submitted to our esteemed journals. As stewards of academic excellence, we recognize that the quality of our review process is paramount in upholding the standards of scholarly publishing and ensuring the integrity of our peer-reviewed journals.

We would be deeply grateful if you could consider accepting our request to review the attached paper for GPCL journals. Your participation as a reviewer is instrumental in the advancement of scientific knowledge and the dissemination of high-quality research within our scholarly community.

• The study described in the paper should align with the broad scope of GPCL journals, covering a diverse array of subject areas relevant to our publications.

Reviewers are kindly requested to meticulously evaluate the paper based on the following comprehensive criteria:

Ethical compliance: Assess whether the study adheres to established ethical standards and guidelines in research conduct, including but not limited to ethical approval, informed consent, and handling of sensitive data.

Scientific accuracy: Evaluate the scientific validity, rigor, and precision of the research methodology, data analysis, and interpretation of results.

Originality significance: Determine the novelty and significance of the research contribution in advancing knowledge within the field, assessing the degree of innovation and uniqueness.

Study plan and methods: Scrutinize the adequacy and appropriateness of the study design, methodology, and experimental procedures employed, ensuring they are robust and well-described.

Statistical correctness: Verify the accuracy and appropriateness of statistical analyses and data presentation, ensuring that statistical methods are correctly applied and interpreted.

Citations appropriateness: Evaluate the relevance and appropriateness of cited references, ensuring they support the claims and assertions made in the manuscript.

Conclusion acceptability: Assess the suitability and validity of the conclusions drawn from the research findings, ensuring they are supported by robust scientific evidence.

Length appropriateness: Determine whether the length of the paper is appropriate for the depth and breadth of the research presented, ensuring conciseness without sacrificing clarity or completeness.

Title and abstract suitability: Evaluate the relevance, clarity, and accuracy of the title and abstract in effectively summarizing the key findings and scope of the study.

Figures and tables appropriateness: Examine the clarity, relevance, and appropriateness of figures, tables, and other graphical elements in presenting data and enhancing understanding.

English usage correctness: Ensure that the manuscript adheres to high standards of English language usage, with clear, concise, and grammatically correct writing.

Other considerations: Consider any additional factors relevant to the assessment of the manuscript’s quality, such as adherence to journal formatting guidelines or the incorporation of supplementary materials.

General considerations

Conflict of interest disclosure: Reviewers are expected to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may influence their impartiality in the review process. If conflicts exist, reviewers should either address them transparently or decline to review.

Constructive feedback: Comments provided to the authors should be constructive, and aimed at improving the quality and clarity of the paper. Reviewers are encouraged to adopt a positive, impartial, yet critical attitude, providing feedback that is both insightful and actionable. Criticism should be presented dispassionately, avoiding offensive language or personal bias.

Specificity and numbering: Reviewer comments should be specific, detailed, and numbered to facilitate the revision process for both the editor and the authors. Comments should focus on addressing specific issues or areas for improvement, avoiding vague or general feedback.

Confidentiality of recommendations: Recommendations regarding the acceptability of the paper should be conveyed confidentially to the editor, rather than in comments sent to the author. The final decision rests solely with the editorial team, who will carefully consider reviewer feedback in making their determination.

Your commitment to the peer review process is deeply appreciated and instrumental in maintaining the high standards of scholarship upheld by GPCL journals. We recognize and value the time and expertise you invest in contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge and the dissemination of high-quality research within our scholarly community.

Please endeavor to complete the review within three weeks of receiving the manuscript. Should you require an extension or have any inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact the editorial office of GPCL journals.

Thank you once again for your dedication to scholarly excellence and your invaluable contributions to the peer review process.