Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewer Guidelines
Thank you for agreeing to review for the Journal of the Ethiopian Society of Chemical Engineers (ESChE). Peer review is the foundation of research quality — these guidelines explain what we ask of reviewers and how to structure a helpful, fair review.
Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Do not share, discuss, or cite them before publication, and delete/destroy your copy once the review process is complete.
Before You Accept
Conflict of Interest
Decline if you have a financial, personal, or professional connection to the authors or a competing interest in the outcome.
Expertise Match
Accept only if the manuscript falls within your area of expertise. Suggest an alternative reviewer if it doesn't.
Time Commitment
Confirm you can complete the review within the requested window — typically 2–4 weeks — before accepting.
Evaluation Criteria
A thorough review considers the following aspects of the manuscript:
Originality & Significance
Does the work offer a genuinely new contribution to the field, or meaningfully extend existing knowledge? Is the problem addressed relevant and important to the journal's scope?
Scientific Soundness & Methodology
Are the methods appropriate and described in enough detail to be reproduced? Are experiments, models, or calculations technically sound? Are conclusions properly supported by the data and analysis presented?
Literature & Context
Does the manuscript adequately reference relevant prior work? Are comparisons to existing literature fair and accurate? Flag any significant omissions in citing related research.
Clarity & Presentation
Is the writing clear and well organized? Are figures, tables, and equations legible, correctly labeled, and necessary? Note any sections that are difficult to follow or could be shortened.
Data & Ethical Compliance
Is underlying data available or adequately described? Watch for signs of plagiarism, data fabrication/manipulation, duplicate submission, or undisclosed conflicts of interest. Report any concerns confidentially to the editor rather than the authors.
Structuring Your Review
Organize your written review into the following parts:
- Summary — a brief, neutral restatement of what the manuscript claims to contribute, showing the authors you engaged with the work
- Major comments — substantive issues affecting validity, methodology, or conclusions that must be addressed
- Minor comments — smaller issues: clarity, typos, figure quality, formatting
- Confidential comments to the editor — anything you don't want shared with authors directly (e.g., suspected misconduct, or your confidence level in the assessment)
Keep feedback constructive: Be specific, objective, and evidence-based. Critique the work, not the authors — avoid personal remarks, sarcasm, or unsupported dismissals such as "this is poor work" without explaining why.
Recommendation Categories
Accept
The manuscript is technically sound, clearly written, and ready for publication with no or only trivial changes.
Minor Revision
The core contribution is sound, but small clarifications, additional references, or presentation fixes are needed before acceptance.
Major Revision
The work has merit but requires substantial changes — additional experiments/analysis, methodological fixes, or significant rewriting — and should be re-reviewed.
Reject
The manuscript has fundamental flaws in soundness, originality, or scope that cannot be resolved through revision, or falls outside the journal's aims.
Timeliness
Review turnaround
Reviews are typically expected within 2–4 weeks of accepting the invitation. If you anticipate a delay, notify the editorial office as early as possible so alternative arrangements can be made. Repeated failure to respond may result in reassignment of the manuscript.
Research & publication ethics
Reviewers are expected to follow the principles set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including impartial assessment, confidentiality, prompt disclosure of conflicts of interest, and reporting suspected ethical violations to the editor rather than acting on them independently.
Ready to begin? Log in to your reviewer dashboard to view assigned manuscripts and submit your review.
