Reviewer guidelines

Download the Reviewer’s Form

Manuscripts submitted to the @Limentech journal are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. We use a double-blind peer review model, which ensures anonymity for both authors and reviewers. Detailed reviewer comments are essential for editors to make decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript.

Reviewer Selection: Reviewers must meet the following criteria:

• Adequate experience to evaluate the manuscript.
• Relevant academic background, typically with a PhD.
• Knowledge in the specific thematic area of the manuscript.
• No conflicts of interest with the authors.

Reviewer Responsibilities: Reviewers must:

• Declare any conflicts of interest before starting the review.
• Decline an invitation if unavailable, suggesting alternative reviewers when possible.
• Complete and submit the review within the agreed timeframe.
• Evaluate the manuscript impartially, providing a detailed and specific report.
• Inform the editors of any suspicious conduct that requires investigation.
• Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript.

To maintain an efficient and effective peer review process and a smooth editorial service, we appreciate that reviewers take a few minutes to read the following guidelines.

We strictly adhere to the criteria specified by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) for ethical academic publishing with maximum transparency. Therefore, we expect reviewers who accept to perform reviews to follow the ethical requirements. We recommend that reviewers consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers when reviewing manuscripts submitted to @Limentech.

Timeliness in Response: Timely communication between the journal and reviewers is crucial:

• Accept or decline a review invitation promptly, based on the manuscript title and abstract.
• Submit the review within the stipulated timeframe. If unable to meet the deadline, inform the journal as soon as possible.
• If unable to review, suggest alternative reviewers with the necessary expertise.

Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest before beginning the review, whether personal, professional, financial, political, or ideological. If in doubt, reviewers should consult with the journal.

Confidentiality: Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the review process. No part of the manuscript can be used or distributed before official publication. Additionally, reviewers should not disclose their identity to the authors.

Suspicion of Inappropriate Ethical Conduct: If any ethical misconduct (e.g., plagiarism or data manipulation) is suspected, reviewers must report it to the journal for further investigation.

 

Rigorous Evaluation for Reviewers: To ensure a fair and detailed evaluation, reviewers must complete a form covering the following aspects:

• Authenticity and Originality: Ensure the results are original and not manipulated.
• Relevance and Impact: Evaluate if the manuscript is relevant and contributes to the advancement of knowledge in the field.
• Scientific Rigor: Confirm that the study is well-designed and scientifically sound.
• Research Ethics: Verify that the study adheres to appropriate ethical principles.
• Language Quality: Ensure the manuscript is well-written, free of grammatical or spelling errors.

Reviewers should provide constructive feedback to improve the manuscript’s quality. Editorial decisions will be based on the reviewers' comments, ensuring a fair and transparent process.