Reviewer Guideline

  1. The Editorial Process and Peer Review

Peer review guarantees that OPS Journal maintains the highest standards of quality for its published papers and is a crucial component of the publication process. All submissions to our journals undergo rigorous, in-depth peer assessment by subject matter experts.

The managing editor of the journal will give the paper a technical pre-check as soon as it is submitted. After receiving notification of the submission, a qualified academic editor will be contacted to conduct an editorial pre-check and suggest reviewers.

Academic editors have the authority to reject an article, ask for amendments before peer review, or decide to proceed with the peer review process. If the peer review procedure is to be continued, the Editorial Office will arrange for the evaluation, which is conducted by impartial specialists, and gather a minimum of two review reports for each article.

Before making a judgment, we invite authors to make sufficient adjustments (and, if needed, submit their work to another round of peer review). An academic editor (often the guest editor of a special issue or the editor-in-chief/editorial board member of a journal) makes the ultimate call. After acceptance, manuscripts undergo internal copy- and English-editing. Here are some specifics on the editing procedure. This is a booklet intended for reviewers.

2. The Profile and Accountabilities of Reviewers

Maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record is a major obligation of the reviewer's position. It is anticipated that each reviewer would evaluate manuscripts in accordance with the COPE criteria (, in a timely, transparent, and ethical manner.

Reviewers must to fulfill the subsequent requirements:
• Have no competing interests with any of the writers.

• Must not be affiliated with the same organization as the writers;

• Had not collaborated on a publication with the writers during the previous three years;

• Be an MD or PhD holder (relevant to medical journals);

• Possess a track record of publication in the subject of the submitted work and relevant experience (Scopus, ORCID);

• Have scholarly knowledge in the field of the paper that was submitted;

• Possess a formal, acknowledged scholarly relationship.

An in-depth assessment of every submission is the goal of OPS Journal's rigorous peer review process, which is a crucial responsibility for our reviewers. When accepting to review a paper, reviewers should be prepared to:

• Possess the required knowledge to assess the manuscript's scientific excellence;

• Deliver high-caliber review reports and be reachable during the peer review procedure;

• Uphold the highest moral and professional standards.

3. Advantages for Reviewers
Despite being vital, reviewing is frequently an unappreciated and unrewarded duty. We want to acknowledge the hard work of each and every one of our reviewers.

Benefits of reviewing for OPS Journal include the following:

• A customized reviewer certificate is given to the reviewers.

• The reviewers are qualified for the "Outstanding Reviewer Awards" consideration.

• If more than fifty reviewers helped the Journal the year before, their names are listed in the Journal's annual recognition of reviewers.

• Promising reviewers to Reviewer Board Members is a possibility (pending approval by the Chief Editor).

• Reviewers may create a profile on Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service and have their reviewing activity automatically added for participating Journals. Profiles on Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service can also be integrated with ORCID.

4. Examiner Board
The primary duty of the Reviewer Board (RB), which is made up of seasoned researchers, is to consistently and actively support journals by producing excellent, thorough, and transparent review reports for submitted publications in their respective fields of expertise. The first term lasts for a year, after which it can be extended or ended. The duties and advantages of membership are the same as those for normal reviewers, plus the following:

Reviewing six papers a year is a basic requirement for RB members. In the event that the reviewer is unable to submit a report upon invitation, they are obliged to recommend other qualified reviewers (recommended candidates must fulfill the reviewers' standards outlined in Section 2).

5. Reviewers Who Volunteer

Volunteers are being sought after by OPS JOURNAL to review submissions. Manuscripts for one or more of OPS Journal's journals may be actively offered for review by members of the Reviewer Board and Volunteer Reviewers.
In order to be included in this program, you have to meet the requirements listed in Section 2, "Reviewers' Profile and Responsibilities."

To join this program, kindly submit an application here: Notification will be sent to the chosen Journal's editorial office. Our internal staff will analyze your application and determine whether your background aligns with the Journal's scope and if there are any potential ethical concerns. If our internal review goes well, your application will be accepted.

Active Volunteer Reviewers may be promoted to Reviewer Board Members (subject to approval by the Editor-in-Chief).

6. General Guidelines for Reviewers
6.1. Invitation to Review
Manuscripts submitted to OPS Journal is reviewed by at least two experts, who can be volunteer reviewers, members of the Reviewer Board or reviewers suggested by the academic editor during the preliminary check. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and to provide a recommendation to the external editor on whether a manuscript should be accepted, requires revisions, or should be rejected.
We ask invited reviewers to:
• accept or decline any invitations as soon as possible (based on the manuscript title and abstract);
• suggest alternative reviewers if an invitation must be declined;
• request a deadline extension as soon as possible in case more time is required to provide a comprehensive report.

6.2. Possibile Financial Interests
If reviewers have any questions about whether something could be a conflict of interest, they should email the Journal Editorial Office. Otherwise, we ask that reviewers disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Among the potential conflicts of interest include (but are not restricted to):
• The reviewer and one of the authors are employed by the same organization;

• Within the last three years, the reviewer has collaborated, co-authored, been awarded a joint grant, or had any other academic relationship with any of the authors;

• The reviewer harbors strong personal ties, rivalries, or animosity toward any of the writers;

• The publication of the paper may result in financial gain or loss for the reviewer in any way;

• The reviewer has any other non-financial conflicts of interest with any of the writers, whether they be intellectual, commercial, political, personal, religious, or ideological.

Any conflicts of interest that could be interpreted as prejudice in favor of or against the paper or authors should be declared by reviewers.

Please be aware that there is no conflict of interest when reviewers are asked to evaluate an article they have already assessed for another journal. In this instance, reviewers are welcome to inform the Editorial Office of any improvements or lack thereof made to the article from the prior draft.

The "Ethical Guidelines For Peer Reviewers by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)" contain pertinent details that reviewers are encouraged to study.

6.3. Confidentiality Declaration

Single- or double-blind peer review is used by OPS JOURNAL. Reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript's content, including the Abstract, until the paper is published. It is advisable for reviewers to use caution in concealing their identity from the authors through their comments or in the metadata of reports that are supplied in PDF or Microsoft Word formats. If a reviewer would prefer that a colleague finish the review instead of them, they must notify the Editorial Office (reviewers must always meet the standards listed in Section 2).

The OPS JOURNAL provides the opportunity for reviewers to sign their open review reports when the authors have chosen "Open Review," and for writers to publish review reports with their paper (Open Review). However, the reviewer's consent is required for this to be done after publication. Review reports are private in all other circumstances and will only be shared with the reviewer's express consent.

6.4 Examine the Reports
Please find below a list of general guidelines pertaining to the review report.

Firstly, kindly take into consideration the following guidelines:

Read the entire paper and any appendices, making sure to carefully examine the figures, tables, data, and procedures.

In addition to critically analyzing the article in its entirety, your report should also address individual passages and the main ideas the author presents.

To ensure that the authors fully comprehend and handle the points you bring, please make sure your comments are detailed.

When it is not evidently necessary to raise the caliber of the manuscript under review, reviewers are not allowed to suggest that the journal, another author, close colleagues, or themselves be cited in their work.

To increase their own, other authors', or the journal where the manuscript was submitted's citation counts, reviewers are not allowed to suggest excessive self-citations, honorary citations of another author's work, or citations of papers from the publication to which the submission was submitted. References are acceptable as long as they distinctly raise the caliber of the work being reviewed.

Kindly stay impartial and concentrate on offering helpful critiques that will assist the writers in making their work better. Comments that are disparaging will not be accepted.

Reviewers are not permitted to create peer review reports or evaluate submissions using AI or AI-assisted tools (like ChatGPT). The substance of reviews is entirely the responsibility of the reviewers, and using AI technologies for this purpose is against peer review confidentially.

The ICMJE (medical journals), CONSORT (trial reporting), TOP (data transparency and openness, rial reporting), PRISMA (systematic reviews and meta-analyses) and ARRIVE (reporting of in vivo experiments) are only a few of the standards and principles that OPS Journal adheres to.

For additional information, see the Publishing Standards & Guidelines page or get in touch with the Editorial Office. Reviewers who are acquainted with the rules have to communicate any apprehensions they may have regarding their execution.

Please refer to the following documents for more instructions on how to write a critical review:

COPE Peer Reviewers' Ethical Guidelines. The Publication Ethics Committee. accessible online.

Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: best practices, I. Hames. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007.

Composing a review for a journal publication
Canberra, Australia: Australian National University, 2010. accessible online.

Boza-Golash, T. There are six processes involved in writing a peer review for an academic publication. accessible online.

The following should be included in review reports:

  • A brief summary (one short paragraph) outlining the aim of the paper, its main contributions and strengths.

Overall idea remarks

Article: pointing out flaws in the methodology, the testability of the hypothesis, lacking controls, etc.

Review: providing feedback on the extent to which the review issue has been addressed, its applicability, the knowledge gap that has been found, the suitability of the references, etc.

These remarks should be detailed enough for the authors to be able to reply, with an emphasis on the manuscript's scientific content.

Particular remarks on unclear sentences or errors in the text that are indicated by line numbers, tables, or figures. Additionally, as our internal team can handle spelling, formatting, and English language issues later, the focus of these comments should be on the scientific substance rather than on other issues.

General inquiries to direct your research article review report:

Does the manuscript follow a clear, well-organized format and make sense in the field?

Are most of the mentioned sources current papers (published within the last five years) that are pertinent? Does it have an undue amount of self-citations?

Is the experimental design suitable for testing the hypothesis, and is the text scientifically sound?

Based on the information provided in the methods section, are the results of the manuscript reproducible?

Are the pictures, tables, charts, and numbers appropriate? Do they display the data correctly? Are they simple to read and comprehend? Does the manuscript's interpretation of the data remain correct and consistent throughout? Please include information on the statistical analysis or the data that was obtained from particular databases.

Are the findings in line with the arguments and supporting data?
Please make sure the data availability and ethics declarations are sufficient by evaluating them.

General inquiries to direct your review report for publications under evaluation:

Is the review lucid, thorough, and pertinent to the field? Is there a recognized knowledge gap?

Is the present review still relevant and of interest to the scientific community, and was a similar review published recently, if so?

Are most of the mentioned sources current papers (published within the last five years) that are pertinent? Have any pertinent citations been left out? Does it have an undue amount of self-citations?

Are the claims made and the conclusions reached logical and backed up by the citations listed?

Are the pictures, tables, charts, and numbers appropriate? Do they display the data correctly? Are they simple to read and comprehend?

An Academic Editor will grade the content of your review report based on its scientific value and overall contribution to the manuscript's improvement. Reviewer Board Members, volunteer reviewers, and regular reviewers may be promoted based on the overall grade results.

6.5 Rating the Manuscript

As you evaluate the manuscript, please assign a score to the following:

• Novelty: Is the question well-defined and unique? Do the findings contribute to the present state of knowledge?
• Scope: Is the work within the Journal's parameters?
• Significance: Have the findings been properly interpreted? Are they noteworthy? Do the findings justify and bolster all of the conclusions? Are theories properly labeled as such?
• Quality: Is the writing style of the piece appropriate? Are the analyses and data provided correctly? Are the results presented in accordance with the highest standards?

• Scientific Soundness: Is the study technically sound and correctly designed? Are the analyses carried out to the highest standards of expertise? Is the data sufficiently robust to draw conclusions? Are the methods, tools, software, and reagents described in enough detail to enable another researcher to reproduce the results? Is the raw data available and correct (where applicable)?

• Interest to Readers: Are the conclusions interesting for the Journal's readership? Will the paper attract a wide readership, or will it be of interest only to a limited number of people? (Please see the Aims and Scope of the Journal.)

• Overall Merit: Is there an overall benefit to publishing this work? Does the work advance the current knowledge? Do the authors address an important long-standing question with smart experiments? Do the authors present a negative result of a valid scientific hypothesis?

• English Proficiency: Is the English language suitable and comprehensible?An

Submissions to OPS JOURNAL manuscripts must to adhere to the strictest guidelines for publication ethics:

• Only results that have never been submitted or published before, even partially, should be included in manuscripts.

• Text from other sources must be original in manuscripts; it must be properly cited.

• The presented studies ought to have been conducted in compliance with well recognized ethical research guidelines.

Reviewers should notify the in-house editor right away if they become aware of any scientific misconduct, fraud, plagiarism, or other unethical behavior pertaining to the paper.

6.6. General Suggestion

Please offer the following general recommendation for the manuscript's next processing step:

• Accept in Present Form: The work is acceptable as is, with no modifications.

• Accept after Minor Revisions: Based on the reviewer's feedback, the article may, in theory, be approved after revision. Five days are allotted to authors for minor edits.

• Reconsider after Significant Revisions: The manuscript's acceptance would be contingent upon the revisions. If parts of the reviewer's criticisms are unrevisable, the author must offer a detailed answer or a rebuttal. For each manuscript, two major revision rounds at most are usually offered.

Within ten days, authors will be required to submit the corrected manuscript again, after which it will be sent back to the reviewer for additional feedback. To ensure that all papers are sufficiently edited and to prevent needless time pressure, we will advise authors to remove their work before resubmitting if the required revision period is expected to be more than two months.

• Reject: There are significant errors in the piece, it adds nothing fresh, and the manuscript can be turned down without being given the option to resubmit it to the journal.

Please be aware that the authors cannot see your recommendation; only Journal editors can see it. Revision, approval, and rejection decisions must always be well-founded.

6.7. Instructions for Registered Reports Paper Reviewers

There are two steps in the evaluation process for registered reports. Reviewers evaluate study proposals in Stage 1 prior to data collection. Reviewers take into account the entire study, including the interpretation and outcomes, in Stage 2.

Keep in mind that no experimental data or outcomes will be included while reading Stage 1 papers. Reviewers just need to evaluate the procedure, such as by doing the following:

1. The significance and validity of the theories put forth;

2. The methodology's adequacy and viability for the experiments and analysis;

3. Whether enough information is provided to duplicate the suggested experimental setup and analysis;

4. If enough outcome-neutral tests, such as quality checks and positive controls, have been conducted on the hypotheses.

When a manuscript successfully completes Stage 1 peer review, it can be published right away or—at the authors' option—after Stage 2 is successfully finished. Editorial choices will not be made in light of the significance or originality of the findings.

Reviewers of Stage 2 manuscripts will be requested to evaluate:

1. Whether the agreed outcome-neutral conditions (such as quality checks and positive controls) were met by the data in order to test the suggested hypotheses;

2. If the tested hypotheses aligned with the authorized Stage 1 proposal;

3. Whether the writers followed the published experimental protocols exactly or whether they could adequately defend any deviations;

4. If any fresh analyses (not addressed in Stage 1) are pertinent and methodologically sound;

5. Whether the authors’ conclusions are justified given the data.