Reviewer Guidelines
Excellence in Peer Review for Coronavirus Research
Peer Review Excellence: These guidelines ensure consistent, thorough, and constructive peer review that maintains IJCV's high standards for coronavirus research publication.
⚠️ COPE Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers
Reviewers must adhere to COPE's ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. Any misconduct—such as breach of confidentiality, failure to declare conflicts of interest, using a manuscript's content for personal gain, or unfair bias—will be treated seriously and may result in removal from the reviewer database and potential sanctions.
Review Process Overview
Invitation
Receive review invitation with manuscript details and deadline.
Accept/Decline
Respond within 48 hours regarding your availability and any conflicts.
Review
Conduct thorough evaluation within the specified timeframe (2-3 weeks).
Submit
Submit comprehensive review with recommendations and feedback.
Review Evaluation Criteria
Scientific Merit
- Originality and novelty of research
- Significance to coronavirus research field
- Appropriateness of research questions
- Contribution to existing knowledge
- Potential for future research impact
Methodology
- Appropriateness of study design
- Adequacy of sample size and selection
- Validity of data collection methods
- Statistical analysis appropriateness
- Control of confounding factors
Results & Analysis
- Clarity and accuracy of results presentation
- Appropriate use of figures and tables
- Statistical significance and interpretation
- Data quality and completeness
- Reproducibility of findings
Discussion & Conclusions
- Interpretation of results
- Acknowledgment of limitations
- Comparison with existing literature
- Clinical or practical implications
- Future research directions
Presentation Quality
- Clarity of writing and organization
- Grammar and language quality
- Logical flow of arguments
- Completeness of information
- Adherence to journal guidelines
Ethical Considerations
- Appropriate ethical approvals
- Informed consent procedures
- Data privacy and confidentiality
- Conflict of interest disclosure
- Research integrity compliance
Review Report Structure
Recommended Report Format
1. Summary (100-150 words)
Brief overview of the study, main findings, and your overall assessment of the manuscript's contribution to the field.
2. Major Comments
Significant issues that affect the manuscript's scientific validity, methodology, or interpretation. Address each major concern separately with specific suggestions for improvement.
3. Minor Comments
Smaller issues including presentation, clarity, grammar, and formatting. Provide line-by-line comments when helpful.
4. Recommendation
Clear recommendation (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject) with brief justification based on your evaluation.
Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers
Confidentiality
Maintain strict confidentiality of manuscript content. Do not share, discuss, or use information from manuscripts under review.
Objectivity
Provide unbiased evaluation based on scientific merit, regardless of author identity, institution, or nationality.
Conflicts of Interest
Decline review invitations when conflicts exist. Disclose any potential conflicts to the editor immediately.
Constructive Feedback
Provide constructive, respectful feedback that helps authors improve their work, even when recommending rejection.
Common Review Scenarios
When to Decline a Review Invitation
- Conflict of Interest: Personal, professional, or financial relationships with authors
- Insufficient Expertise: Lack of knowledge in the specific research area
- Time Constraints: Unable to complete review within the specified timeframe
- Competing Interests: Working on similar research that could create bias
- Previous Involvement: Prior review of the same manuscript for another journal
Handling Difficult Reviews
- Poor Quality Manuscripts: Provide specific, constructive feedback even when recommending rejection
- Borderline Cases: Clearly articulate reasons for your recommendation
- Ethical Concerns: Report suspected misconduct to the editor immediately
- Incomplete Information: Request additional details needed for proper evaluation
- Disagreement with Other Reviewers: Maintain your independent assessment
Review Quality Standards
Characteristics of Excellent Reviews
- Thorough: Comprehensive evaluation of all manuscript components
- Specific: Detailed comments with line numbers and specific examples
- Balanced: Recognition of strengths alongside identification of weaknesses
- Constructive: Actionable suggestions for improvement
- Professional: Respectful tone and appropriate language
- Timely: Submitted within the agreed timeframe
Reviewer Support & Resources
Training Materials
Access to peer review training modules, best practice guides, and example reviews.
Review Templates
Structured templates to guide comprehensive manuscript evaluation and report writing.
Editorial Support
Direct access to editorial team for questions about review process and expectations.
Recognition Program
Annual recognition and certificates for outstanding reviewer contributions.
Contact Information
Questions about the review process or need assistance?
Excellence in Peer Review
Your expert review contributes to maintaining the highest standards of coronavirus research publication and advancing scientific knowledge.
Contact: For inquiries, please email [email protected]
