Instructions for Reviewers
Peer reviewers are essential to the quality and credibility of published research. The following guidelines outline the responsibilities and evaluation standards expected of reviewers at Open Access Pub. While most principles will be familiar to experienced academics, they may be especially helpful to those new to the review process.
Evaluating Submitted Manuscripts
During evaluation, please verify that the manuscript meets the following quality standards in each section.
Title
Should be readily understood, clear and concise, informative, and directly related to the content of the manuscript.
Abstract
- Hypothesis or purpose should be clear and concise, typically stated in the last sentence of the first paragraph
- Methodology clearly identified and described briefly
- Results summarised with data and statistics where necessary
- Conclusions and findings clearly stated
Introduction
- Early introduction of the general problem
- Precisely stated research questions
- Clear and concise hypothesis
- Identification of study assumptions
- Significance of the problem discussed
- Justification of the research
- Brief summary of relevant literature and its implications
- Relevance and timeliness of citations; primary sources preferred
- Relationship to previous research clearly established
Methods & Materials
- Subject population clearly described
- For human subjects: informed consent or IRB approval documented
- For animal subjects: compliance with NIH “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” (Publication 85-23, revised 1985)
- Sampling method justified
- Data collection methods described with sufficient detail
- Appropriate design for the hypothesis or research questions
- Proper controls included where appropriate
- Variables unambiguously identified
- Design sufficiently detailed for replication
- Statistical tests appropriate to the design
If you are unsure about the adequacy of statistical test selection, note this on the “Comments by Editor” form and a statistical consultation will be arranged.
Results
- Clear, precise, and logically organised presentation
- Sufficient information to answer the research question
- Statistical reports with values where applicable
- Statistics relevant to the research hypothesis
- Complete, easily understandable tables and figures
Data should be reported in either table or figure format—not both. If significant descriptive data exists, consider asking the authors to include it as a table addendum.
Discussion
- Clearly stated conclusions supported by evidence
- Hypothesis revisited in light of findings
- Implications of findings discussed
- Proper generalisation relative to the study population
- Possible sources of sampling bias or errors described
- Relevance and reliability of previous research data
- Limitations of the study identified and discussed
- Recommendations for future research
Conclusion
An end paragraph of the discussion section summarising key findings. A summary paragraph may precede the conclusion if necessary.
References & Formatting
References
References must be organised in the required style of the journal. Primary sources (journals) are preferred over secondary sources (textbooks). Manuscripts should contain sufficient references to previously published work to support the discussion.
General guidelines for reference counts by manuscript type:
| Manuscript Type | Reference Count |
|---|---|
| Clinical Scientific | 20–30 |
| Laboratory Scientific | 20–30 |
| Case Report | 3–10 |
| How-To | 3–10 |
| Review | 50–150 |
Tables & Figures
Tables and figures should present results clearly and concisely. Good graphical representation is expected. Advanced 2D and 3D formats may enhance readability, but images must not be manipulated to fit results. Video clips of limited size may be included if they substantially support the findings.
Form & Style
- Report must be clear and logically organised
- Tone should be impartial, unbiased, and scientific
- Manuscript must follow the journal’s Instructions for Authors format
- Must contain appropriate keywords
Important Guidelines
Key Reminders for Reviewers
Note errors or comments with reference to line numbers, presenting both the issue and the suggested correction. Do not hesitate to provide an impartial review—multiple rounds of revision may be necessary to achieve the desired quality.
Manuscripts that fall outside the scope of the journal should be flagged for rejection without a full review. In cases of rejection, state the reason clearly and guide the authors on next steps (e.g., suggest language editing if the subject is sound but the language is inadequate; indicate scope mismatch if applicable).
Adhere to high standards of language quality. Published work must be understandable by readers worldwide.
Ethical Obligations
Reviewer Ethics
- Give unbiased consideration to all manuscripts, judging each on its merits without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s).
- Consider manuscripts with all reasonable speed and attention. The sole responsibility for acceptance or rejection rests with the editor.
- Do not disclose information about manuscripts under consideration to anyone other than those from whom professional advice is sought.
- Respect the intellectual independence of authors.
- Do not use unpublished information or interpretations from submitted manuscripts in your own research without the author’s consent.
- If a manuscript is closely related to your own research and creates a conflict of interest, notify the editor so another qualified reviewer can be assigned.
- Honour reasonable author requests to exclude specific reviewers.
Committed to Rigorous Peer Review
These guidelines ensure the quality, fairness, and integrity of the peer review process at Open Access Pub.
View Publication Ethics