Reviewer Guidelines
This Publication uses double anonymized peer-review process (in accordance with this taxonomy):
- reviewers identity is not made visible to author(s), author(s) identity is not made visible to reviewers, reviewers and author(s) identity is only visible to (decision-making) editor;
- reviewers interact with Editor;
- no information about the review process or editorial decision process is published.
Such a procedure allows to ensure the objectivity of the review process, subject to proper confidentiality and the absence of a conflict of interest.
Two reviewers are assigned to each submission (please note that neither reviewer may recommend co-reviewer). Assigned reviewers will conduct their own reviews (regarding the arcticle and existing supplementary materials) independent of one another following steps established in the review template.
How to become a Reviewer
Researchers/Scientists with significant experience and expertise in subject area covered by the Publication, who are interested in completing such reviews may become Reviewers for this Publication. For that they need to register on Publication website under “Reviewer” role and provide detailed description of their experience.
Selection for review process is done by editor based on following considerations:
- Necessary experience in evaluating research quality;
- Independence from Author(s) of an article;
- Free of conflict of interest (do not work for the same organization, do not have publications with the author(s) in the last 5 years, do not have any financial or professional interests or gains as result of this work, and are not a family member).
In addition, priority is given to those reviewers who meet following criteria:
- Quality of prior reviews;
- Being active in the research community;
- Number of publications in a subject area.
If you are selected to become a reviewer, editorial office will send you an offer letter. Please respond within 3 working days with your acceptance, otherwise your candidacy will be rejected. Before you accept a request to review, please ensure you meet all requirements listed above and have considered the time commitment necessary to complete quality review. By accepting offer to review, you will agree to write and submit quality review within editorial deadline (up to 14 days).
We appreciate prompt communication or advance notice in case reviewer is having difficulties meeting 14-day deadline.
Where to begin
All reviewers should familiarize themselves with following resources:
- What to consider when offered to review scholarly manuscript – COPE guidelines will help to make decision whether to accept a review offer;
- Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers – COPE guidelines that provides basic principals and standards that all peer reviewers must follow during the peer review process;
- Web of Science Academy – offers free tools and resources on how to maintain research quality and how to write a quality reviews.
If you still have any questions please email us.
Reviewer Responsibilities
- Provide objective and constructive feedback in allotted time (up to 14 days);
- Provide feedback free of any personal biases;
- Have relevant experience to assess quality of the research;
- Avoid any conflict of interest from Author or Editor or otherwise notify editorial office;
- Comply with ethical norms and guidelines of the Publication and notify editorial office of any issues;
- Maintain information confidentiality and not disclose any information without permission from Chief Editor;
- Do not use any of the reviewed materials that has not yet been published for any personal gain;
- Make themselves available in case of questions on completed reviews and need for clarification;
- Be professional and communicate well.
Writing Review
After accepting an offer to review, you will receive questionnaire, which you need to answer and/or provide comments to.
Here we highlighted some aspects that you should pay attention to before filling out the questionnaire.
| Aspect |
What to consider |
|---|---|
| General Overview |
▪ Is this paper in scope of the Publication? ▪ Is this research original and new? ▪ Is this research scientifically significant? ▪ Does it have any future practical application? ▪ Does this paper describe all goals? ▪ Does the title match the content? |
| Keywords |
▪ Do the keywords reflect research substance? ▪ Are they complete to reach key readership audience? |
| Annotation | Verify whether annotation is consistent with content of the paper and whether it helps to clearly understand the scope and the aim, the most significant results and reached conclusions. |
| Introduction |
▪ Is an introduction concise and clear? ▪ Does introduction create context for the subject and topic, formulate the problem in its general form and its relevance? ▪ Is it connected with important scientific, research and practical priorities? |
| Literature review |
▪ Is the literature used to support this research the latest and the most relevant? Did author submit short description of current research materials to support research context. ▪ Are the materials used in this research geographically diverse and represent the best and most relevant research in the given area? ▪ Are there any additional resources that would have to be considered for this research? |
| Methods / Methodologies |
Depending on research such section may be may be omitted by the authors. We expect that the reviewer will be able to recognize whether the absence of such section is appropriate and provide relevant recommendations. Please pay attention to the following: ▪ Does the Autor disclose resources of used data? ▪ Are the methods described clearly? ▪ Are the new methods well documented? ▪ Is this information sufficient for independent research support? |
| Results |
▪ Are the results presented clearly and are they in agreement with documented methodology? ▪ Are the results presented correctly? Are they well supported and readable? ▪ Are the graphs/tables significant to be used in the research? |
| Discussion |
Please note that this section should not duplicate results section but explain them. Aside from that please pay attention to: ▪ Whether Author reached his goals? ▪ How those results correspond with already known outcomes. Any inconsistencies with prior work are properly noted? ▪ Should any limitations be noted? |
| Conclusion |
▪ Is there a connection with other sections of the research? ▪ Does author offer any direction for future research? ▪ Are the results consistent with the explanations listed in “Discussion” section? |
If you have any question about the review procedure, please e-mail us for clarification: oleksandr.fintechalliance@gmail.com
Additional Information
Please note, that it is not reviewer’s responsibility to check article for grammatical correctness. However, if grammatical or spelling errors significantly impact content of the research, please notify both the editor and the author(s).
If research lacks logical connection because of insufficient analysis, then reviewer must explain what additional information or analyses may be expected to be added to mitigate.
The OJS form for reviewers does not allow for numbered list entries. Accordingly, we recommend numbering existing comments for more convenient communication.
General Assessment
After questionnaire is completed, reviewer shall provide general recommendations to editor to be considered in his/her decision in following form:
- Accept without change;
- Minor revisions – paper could be accepted for publishing after small changes/updates that do not require a lot of time (not more than a few working days), and typically do not require additional review;
- Major revisions – submitted research contains major deficiencies, inconsistencies and could only be submitted after correction. Typically, such revisions takes long time and must be re-reviewed. In this case author(s) must respond to all comments and recommendations;
- Reject research paper.
We are committed to publish high quality content and to provide exceptional services to all. We are always looking to improve our processes. Your opinion is very important to us. Please share your thoughts and suggestions and we will be happy to take them into consideration.