Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Primary research manuscripts should be subject to genuine independent scholarly review.

Macaw Publications journals normally seek assessments from at least two independent reviewers for research articles before a final acceptance decision is made.

Reviewers should possess appropriate expertise relevant to the manuscript and should not participate where a material competing interest could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, independent judgement.

Any legitimate disciplinary or article-type exception to the journal's normal peer-review process should be identified transparently in the applicable journal policy.

Reviewers should assess manuscripts only where they possess sufficient expertise to evaluate the relevant subject, methodology, analytical approach, theoretical framework, or other substantive components of the work.

Where a reviewer can assess only part of a multidisciplinary manuscript, this should be communicated to the editor.

Reviewers should not present themselves as experts in areas beyond their reasonable competence.

Unpublished manuscripts and review-related information must be treated as confidential.

Reviewers must not distribute, publish, reproduce, discuss, or otherwise disclose manuscript content to unauthorised persons.

Manuscript data, methods, ideas, figures, results, unpublished findings, or other confidential information must not be used for the reviewer's personal research, commercial activity, competitive advantage, or other unauthorised purpose.

Confidentiality continues after the review has been completed, regardless of whether the manuscript is subsequently accepted, rejected, withdrawn, or published.

A reviewer invited by the journal remains responsible for the assigned review and must not transfer the manuscript or review responsibility to another person without prior editorial approval.

This requirement applies to colleagues, students, research assistants, laboratory members, collaborators, and other third parties.

Where a reviewer wishes to involve a qualified early-career researcher or co-reviewer for legitimate training or expertise reasons, prior permission should be obtained from the editor so that contribution, confidentiality, and accountability can be managed appropriately.

Reviewer comments should focus on the scholarly content, evidence, methodology, reporting, interpretation, and relevance of the manuscript.

Personal criticism, insults, discriminatory comments, humiliation, hostility, threats, or comments unrelated to the scholarly quality of the manuscript are not appropriate.

Reviewers should recognise that disagreement with an author's interpretation does not by itself demonstrate that the work is invalid.

Reviewers should assess whether the research design and methods are suitable for addressing the stated research question or objective.

Where relevant, reviewers should consider sampling, datasets, controls, experimental procedures, statistical analysis, validation, software, algorithms, assumptions, measurement procedures, reproducibility, and potential sources of bias.

Concerns about methodology should be explained specifically enough for the editor and authors to understand their significance.

Reviewers should assess whether interpretations are supported by the reported evidence and placed appropriately in relation to existing scholarship.

Material limitations, uncertainty, possible bias, and reasonable alternative explanations should be acknowledged where relevant.

Conclusions should not substantially exceed what can be supported by the study design and evidence.

Where relevant to the manuscript, reviewers should consider whether appropriate ethical approval, consent, privacy, confidentiality, animal-welfare, safety, or regulatory information has been reported.

Reviewers are not expected to conduct institutional investigations, but credible concerns regarding ethical compliance should be reported confidentially to the handling editor.

A useful peer-review report should explain both the strengths and the material concerns of the manuscript.

Comments should be sufficiently specific to help the editor understand the basis of the recommendation and, where appropriate, enable the authors to improve the manuscript.

Reviewers should distinguish major issues affecting validity, interpretation, or contribution from minor issues involving presentation, clarification, terminology, formatting, or editorial correction.

Major concerns ordinarily involve issues that could materially affect the validity, reliability, interpretation, contribution, ethical acceptability, or reproducibility of the work.

Minor concerns ordinarily involve corrections or clarifications that improve presentation without requiring fundamental changes to the principal study design or conclusions.

Reviewers should avoid characterising extensive methodological or analytical deficiencies as minor merely to accelerate a manuscript toward acceptance.

Suggested references must serve a legitimate scholarly purpose.

Reviewers should not request unnecessary citations to increase citations to themselves, their collaborators, their institution, a preferred journal, or Macaw Publications journals.

Where a citation is recommended, the reviewer should be able to explain its relevance to the manuscript.

When reviewing a revised manuscript, reviewers should consider the authors' responses together with the revised text.

Reviewers should determine whether substantive concerns have been addressed adequately rather than introducing unrelated new requirements without a clear scholarly reason.

Where new concerns arise because of changes made during revision, these may be raised and should be explained clearly.

Manuscripts authored or co-authored by an editor, Editorial Board member, Guest Editor, or other person associated with the journal should receive independent editorial handling and peer review.

Reviewers should assess such manuscripts according to the same scholarly standards applied to other submissions.

Editorial association with the journal must not result in preferential review or publication treatment.

Macaw Publications journals use Open Journal Systems (OJS) to support manuscript and peer-review workflows.

Reviewers should use the official journal review interface for accepting or declining invitations, accessing authorised files, submitting reviewer comments, uploading review documents where required, and recording recommendations.

Reviewer accounts and access credentials should not be shared with unauthorised persons.

Credible concerns regarding reviewer misconduct, confidentiality breaches, conflicts of interest, citation manipulation, impersonation, review manipulation, or inappropriate conduct may be examined by the journal and publisher.

Where concerns are substantiated, proportionate action may include discontinuing the review, disregarding the report, removing the reviewer from future assignments, correcting the editorial record, or taking other appropriate action.

Serious cases may require communication with relevant institutions or other responsible bodies where appropriate and permitted.

Reviewers should read these guidelines together with the applicable Macaw Publications and journal-level policies, including:

Peer Review & Editorial Process; Publication Ethics & Research Integrity; Editorial Independence & Conflict of Interest; AI & Generative AI Use Policy; Special Issues & Guest Editor Policy; and Post-Publication Corrections & Retractions.

Journal-specific reviewer enquiries

Questions concerning a particular manuscript, review deadline, reviewer assignment, conflict of interest, review model, technical issue, or confidential editorial concern should normally be directed to the handling editor or editorial office of the relevant journal.

Publisher-level enquiries concerning reviewer conduct, confidentiality, peer-review integrity, or these guidelines may be directed to:

Macaw Publications
H.No. 4-123/8/172, Road No. 1, Indraprastha Colony,
Hathiguda, Hayath Nagar, Hyderabad,
Telangana – 501505, India

Email: publisher@macawpublications.com