Become a Reviewer

The Role of the Reviewer at Scientia International

The International Committee of Scientific Reviewers (ICSR) at Scientia International is composed of highly qualified specialists who play a central role in guaranteeing the quality, accuracy, and integrity of the research published in our journals. By providing detailed and constructive evaluations, reviewers strengthen open science and ensure that each article meets rigorous academic standards.

Expertise and Representativeness

Reviewers are not only experts in their fields; they are guardians of quality and integrity in the scientific process. Their evaluations ensure that manuscripts are technically sound, ethically produced, and contribute meaningfully to the advancement of knowledge. As representatives of global scientific communities, reviewers help to identify weaknesses, highlight strengths, and guide authors toward improving their work.

Committee Commitments

Scientific Rigor: Evaluating manuscripts for methodological solidity, clarity of results, and relevance of conclusions.
Transparency in Peer Review: Contributing to an Open Peer Review model, where reviewer names and affiliations are published alongside the article, and each review is assigned a unique DOI for citation and ORCID integration.
Constructive Dialogue: Providing respectful, precise, and actionable feedback that fosters academic growth and collaboration between authors and reviewers.
Ethical Responsibility: Following the COPE guidelines and Scientia International’s Code of Ethics to ensure impartial and professional assessments.

Core Values

Objectivity: Reviews focus strictly on the scientific merit and methodological rigor of manuscripts.
Transparency: Reviewer reports are openly published, giving visibility to the evaluation process and proper credit to reviewers.
Integrity: Every review is conducted with ethical commitment, reinforcing responsible research practices.
Efficiency: Timely evaluations (10 days per review) are essential to Scientia International’s goal of publishing articles within 45 business days.

Ambassadors of Quality

As integral members of the editorial process, reviewers act as ambassadors of scientific quality. They represent the highest standards of their disciplines, contribute to the credibility of the journals, and play a vital role in fostering the global mission of Scientia International: to democratize access to knowledge and strengthen open science.

Rigorous Evaluation Process

Reviewers are entrusted with the critical responsibility of manuscript assessment. From analyzing research design and methodology to evaluating clarity of presentation and ethical compliance, each review is a cornerstone of the editorial decision-making process. Through their expertise, reviewers ensure that published articles reflect both scientific excellence and responsible research practices.

APPLY BY CLICKING HERE!

Code of Conduct

Integrity and Ethics

All reviewers are required to uphold the highest ethical and professional standards in all peer review activities, ensuring fairness, responsibility, and respect for the scientific process.

Impartiality and Objectivity

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts solely on academic merit, without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, nationality, or political affiliation of the authors.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents, not disclosing or using any part of the information for personal advantage. Manuscripts and related materials should not be shared or discussed with others without explicit authorization from the editorial team.

Prevention of Conflicts of Interest

If a reviewer identifies a potential conflict of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative, or personal) regarding a manuscript, they must declare it immediately and recuse themselves from the evaluation.

Responsibility and Responsiveness

Reviewers are responsible for providing their evaluations promptly, respecting the deadline of 10 days, and communicating with the editorial team in case of any difficulty or delay.

Evidence-Based Evaluation

Review reports should be based on scientific rigor, clarity, and methodological quality, avoiding subjective judgments or personal bias.

Transparency in Peer Review

Reviewers must provide clear, honest, and constructive feedback, highlighting both strengths and areas for improvement. All comments should be written in a respectful and professional tone.

Commitment to Continuous Education

Reviewers are encouraged to engage in ongoing academic development, keeping updated on scientific trends, methodologies, and best practices in scholarly communication.

Cooperation

Reviewers should collaborate effectively with editors and fellow reviewers, contributing to the advancement of the open science model adopted by Scientia International.

Commitment to Continuous Improvement

Reviewers are invited to suggest ways to improve the review process, contributing to greater efficiency, transparency, and quality in academic publishing.

Respect for Authors and Editors

Reviewers must always treat authors and editors with respect and fairness, recognizing their essential contributions to the scientific community and avoiding dismissive or offensive remarks.

Responsibility for Review Reports

Each reviewer is responsible for ensuring that their reports uphold the academic and ethical standards of Scientia International, strengthening the integrity of the peer review process.

This Code of Conduct reflects the commitment of the International Committee of Scientific Reviewers (ICSR) of Scientia International to excellence, integrity, and transparency at every stage of the evaluation process.

Open Peer Review Model

Peer review at Scientia International takes place after the initial publication of the article, following an open and transparent model. This process includes the following steps:

Submission and Initial Publication: Articles are submitted via the OJS (Open Journal Systems) platform. After preliminary checks by the editorial team, the manuscript is sent to a group of reviewers.
Invitation to Reviewers: Experts are formally invited to review the manuscript. These reviewers are selected based on their expertise and editor recommendations, ensuring qualified and relevant feedback.
Open Review Process: Reviewers conduct their analysis, and their assessments are published alongside the article, including their full names and affiliations. This approach promotes transparency and fosters constructive dialogue between authors, reviewers, and the scientific community.
Revisions and Updates: Authors are encouraged to publish revised versions of the article in response to reviewers’ comments. All versions of the article are linked and can be cited independently.

Benefits for Reviewers

Scientia International values and recognizes the essential contributions of reviewers to the peer review process. Participating as a reviewer at Scientia International offers significant benefits for both personal development and the broader academic community.

Getting Credit for Your Work

Public Recognition: Your name and affiliation are published alongside your peer review report, allowing the academic community to recognize and value your expert contribution.
Permanent Registration: Each review receives a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), allowing you to add it to your ORCID profile, ensuring a lasting record of your scientific contribution.

Collaboration and Mentoring

Peer Collaboration: Scientia International encourages collaboration among reviewers by enabling acknowledgment of colleagues’ contributions or appointing them as co-reviewers, fostering a collaborative, interdisciplinary research community.
Mentoring for Emerging Researchers: By participating in the review process, you have the opportunity to mentor early-career researchers, sharing knowledge and fostering academic growth.

Visibility and Academic Recognition

Viewing Metrics: Scientia International provides metrics for peer review reports, allowing you to see the impact and reach of your review within the scientific community.
Citation of Reports: Each review report is assigned a unique DOI, which can be cited in your CV, publications, or funding applications, demonstrating your commitment to research excellence and integrity.

Contribution to Academic Integrity

Promoting Transparency: By participating in Scientia International’s open review process, you contribute directly to transparency and integrity in scientific research.
Advancement of Knowledge: Your critical and constructive analysis helps shape and enhance the quality of scientific publications, playing a vital role in advancing knowledge across various fields.

Reviewer Rewards Program Regulation

1. General Provisions

1.1. This regulation establishes the rules of the Reviewer Rewards Program of Scientia International (hereinafter “Program”), which aims to recognize and value the contribution of members of the International Committee of Scientific Reviewers (ICSR).

1.2. The Program is honorary, non-remunerated, and part of the institutional policy to strengthen open, ethical, and collaborative science.

1.3. The benefit consists of discounts or full waivers of the Article Processing Charge (APC) in Scientia International journals, according to the number of completed reviews by the reviewer within 12 (twelve) months.

2. Objectives

2.1. Publicly acknowledge the work of Scientia International’s scientific reviewers.
2.2. Encourage active and continuous participation of reviewers in the editorial process.
2.3. Offer practical benefits that value dedication and academic excellence.
2.4. Strengthen a culture of open, ethical, and transparent peer review.

3. Eligibility

3.1. All officially registered members of the International Committee of Scientific Reviewers (ICSR) are eligible.

3.2. Only complete reviews, delivered within the established deadline (10 days) and approved by the editorial team regarding quality and relevance, will be counted.

3.3. Reviews that are declined, incomplete, superficial, or that fail to meet minimum scientific standards will not be considered.

3.4. The reference period is from January 1 to December 31 of each year.

4. Criteria and Benefits

4.1. Benefits are awarded according to the number of completed reviews within the reference period:

3 completed reviews → Certificate + 25% APC discount.
6 completed reviews → Certificate + 50% APC discount.
8 or more completed reviews → Certificate + full APC waiver for the publication of 1 article in any Scientia International journal the following year.

4.2. The benefit is personal and non-transferable, valid only for the registered reviewer.

4.3. The benefit is cumulative per year: reviewers exceeding 8 reviews maintain the full waiver, but multiple waivers are not accumulated.

5. Conditions of Use

5.1. Discounts or waivers must be used within 12 months after being granted.

5.2. The benefit may be applied to articles where the reviewer is author or co-author, provided editorial guidelines are respected.

5.3. The benefit does not apply retroactively to articles already submitted or paid.

5.4. The benefit cannot be converted into cash, transferred to third parties, or used in journals outside Scientia International.

5.5. In the case of co-authorship, the reviewer must be formally listed as author on the article.

6. Additional Recognition

6.1. In addition to financial benefits, all participating reviewers will receive:

Digital certificate of participation;
Name and affiliation published alongside the review report;
DOI for each review, cit-able in CVs and linked to ORCID;
Possibility of mention in Scientia International reports and institutional materials.

7. Ethical Provisions

7.1. All reviews must comply with the guidelines of COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics and the Scientia International Code of Ethics.

7.2. Scientia International reserves the right to disregard reviews that present:

Undeclared conflicts of interest;
Unethical conduct, plagiarism, or biased evaluation;
Offensive or unprofessional language.

8. Final Provisions

8.1. This regulation enters into force on the date of publication and applies to the subsequent annual cycle.

8.2. Scientia International may revise and update the rules of the Program annually, notifying reviewers in advance.

8.3. Omitted cases will be analyzed by the editorial team and the Executive Board of Scientia International.

Detailed Guidelines for Reviewers

As a member of the Scientific Review Board, you are expected to:

Read and Evaluate Completely and Thoroughly: Examine all aspects of the article, including data, methods, results, and conclusions.
Provide Detailed and Constructive Feedback: Offer specific, detailed, and helpful comments aimed at improving the manuscript.
Maintain a Professional and Respectful Tone: Avoid derogatory comments and focus on the scientific content.
Declare Conflicts of Interest: Disclose any potential competing interests that may influence your assessment.
Adopt Open Science Principles: Adhere to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) ethical guidelines for reviewers.

Commitment to Quality and Ethics

Scientia International is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of quality and ethics in scientific publications. As a reviewer, you play a crucial role in ensuring that articles meet these standards. You are expected to be familiar with and adhere to the Scientia International Code of Ethics.

Review Deadlines

Commitment to Efficiency and Quality

At Scientia International, we balance efficiency with the highest standards of academic quality. Our goal is to publish papers within an ambitious timeframe of 45 working days from submission, which relies on a swift yet thorough review process.

Deadline for Reviewers

10-Day Review Period: To meet our publication goal, reviewers are requested to provide their feedback within 10 days of receiving the manuscript. This timeframe is carefully set to ensure an efficient review process without compromising quality.
Importance of Adherence to the Deadline: Meeting this deadline is essential to maintain the editorial process flow and ensure timely publication of high-quality articles. We appreciate the commitment and effort of our reviewers in meeting these deadlines.
Flexibility and Support: We understand that reviewers have academic and professional responsibilities. If additional time is needed or difficulties arise, we encourage reviewers to communicate with our editorial team, allowing us to provide support or make necessary adjustments.

Contribution to Accelerated Publication

Impact of Timely Review: Prompt review of manuscripts is crucial to our ability to publish innovative research quickly. The responsiveness of reviewers directly supports the accelerated dissemination of scientific knowledge.
Recognition and Appreciation: Scientia International values the essential role of reviewers, recognizing their contributions as integral to maintaining academic integrity and driving scientific progress. We strive to honor and acknowledge this critical work in the publication process.

Criteria and Requirements for Reviewers

At Scientia International, we value the expertise and integrity of our reviewers. To ensure high-quality and impartial peer review, we have established rigorous criteria for reviewer selection.

Academic Qualification

Higher Education: Reviewers should typically hold a doctoral degree (PhD/MD/MBBS or equivalent). Exceptions may be made in fields where doctoral degrees are uncommon or for individuals with a proven public record of expertise.

Specialization and Experience

Publication History: Reviewers must have published at least three articles as lead author on a relevant topic, with at least one publication in the last five years.
Diversity of Experience: In fields where experience is not solely measured by publications, other indicators of expertise (such as a LinkedIn page or institutional profile) may be considered.

Impartiality

Absence of Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers should have no competing interests that could influence their evaluation. This includes not being a close collaborator of the authors, not having co-authored with the lead authors in the past three years, and not working at the same institution.
Exceptions in Specialized Fields: We acknowledge that in highly specialized fields, finding reviewers without previous collaboration with the authors may be challenging. In such cases, the editorial team should be consulted to determine the best approach.

Global Diversity

Institutional Diversity: We require reviewers from different institutions, except in cases involving large institutions with multiple campuses.
International Perspective: We encourage reviewers from varied geographic locations to provide a comprehensive international perspective on the article.
Inclusive Diversity: We seek reviewers diverse in gender, geographic location, and career stage. The editorial team may request additional suggestions to ensure well-rounded representation.

Specific Guidelines for Different Types of Articles

Research Article

Evaluate the clarity and accuracy of the work’s presentation and its relevance to current literature.
Assess the adequacy of the study design and academic merit.
Confirm that sufficient methodological details are provided for replication.
Review the appropriateness of the statistical analysis and interpretation, if applicable.
Ensure the availability of underlying data for full reproducibility.
Check if conclusions are well-supported by the results.

Brief Report

Determine if the work is presented clearly and aligns with current literature.
Assess the adequacy of the study design and academic merit.
Confirm that sufficient methodological details are provided for replication.
Ensure availability of all underlying data and materials.
Verify that conclusions are well-supported by the results.

Case Report

Review the detailed background and progression of the case.
Assess the adequacy of information about tests, treatments, and their outcomes.
Consider the case’s relevance for understanding diseases, diagnoses, or treatments.
Evaluate its usefulness to other professionals.

Case Study

Ensure a complete description of the case’s background and development.
Verify proper citation of current literature.
Assess the adequacy of statistical analyses, if applicable.
Confirm data availability for full reproducibility.
Check if conclusions are supported by the results.

Correspondence

Review the justification for comments on prior publications.
Assess the clarity, foundation, and persuasiveness of expressed opinions.
Confirm that arguments are well-supported by evidence or new data.
Ensure a balanced and justified conclusion.

Data Note

Check the clarity of the rationale for creating the dataset.
Evaluate the technical soundness and adequacy of protocols.
Confirm that methods and analyses are replicable.
Ensure datasets are presented clearly and in an accessible format.

Rehearsal (Essay)

Evaluate if the essay accurately discusses the topic in relation to current literature.
Ensure the work is presented clearly and persuasively.
Confirm that arguments are well-founded and evidence-backed.
Analyze the essay’s contribution to the cultural, historical, and social understanding of the field.

Method Article

Review the clarity of the justification for the new method or application.
Evaluate the technical accuracy of the method description.
Ensure sufficient detail is provided for replication by others.
Confirm the availability of all underlying data for reproducibility.
Check if conclusions about the method’s performance are supported by results.

Opinion Article

Assess the article’s accuracy within the context of current literature.
Confirm that factual statements are accurate and supported by citations.
Ensure arguments are well-founded and evidence-backed.
Verify that conclusions are balanced and justified.

Policy Briefs

Evaluate if the document provides a comprehensive overview of the policy and its implementation context.
Assess clarity and accuracy in discussing implications, citing current literature.
Ensure recommendations are clear, balanced, and justified.

Analysis

Confirm comprehensive discussion of the analysis topic in relation to current literature.
Verify that all factual statements are accurate and well-supported.
Ensure the analysis is accessible and understandable.
Confirm that conclusions are appropriate within current research context.

Software Tool Article

Evaluate the rationale for developing the software tool.
Confirm technical accuracy of the tool description.
Ensure sufficient code, methods, and analysis details for replication.
Check if provided information allows interpretation of output data and results.
Verify that conclusions about the tool’s performance are supported.

Study Protocol

Review the study’s justification and objectives.
Assess the appropriateness of the study design for the research question.
Confirm sufficient detail for method replication.
Ensure clarity and accessibility of datasets.

Systematic Review

Ensure the systematic review’s rationale and objectives are clearly defined.
Confirm that methods and analyses are replicable.
Review the appropriateness of statistical analysis and interpretation.
Verify that conclusions are supported by presented results.

Scientific Reviewers Application Form