Become a Reviewer | Scientia International

Conviértase en revisor

Fostering Excellence and Transparency in Scientific Review

The International Committee of Scientific Reviewers at Scientia International plays a key role in our editorial process. Composed of highly qualified experts across a range of disciplines, this committee is responsible for upholding the integrity, accuracy, and relevance of submitted scientific articles. Our open and transparent peer review approach fosters a fair and constructive 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.

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.

SCIENTIA INTERNATIONAL

Conviértase en revisor

Fostering Excellence and Transparency in Scientific Review

Síganos en las redes sociales:

Newsletter