For Reviewers

Manuscripts submitted to Neolith Press journals undergo review by at least two experts. Reviewers evaluate manuscript quality and recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection to the external editor.

Reviewer Responsibilities:

•    •  Respond promptly to invitations based on the  manuscript title and abstract.

•    • Suggest alternative reviewers if declining.

•    • Request extensions if more time is needed for the review.

Review Criteria:
    • Reviewers assess:

•     • Originality, significance, presentation quality, scientific soundness, reader interest, overall merit, and English proficiency.

•     • Provide an overall publication recommendation and a detailed, constructive review.

Conflict of Interest:
Reviewers must disclose any conflicts that may bias their review. Prior review of the manuscript for another journal is not considered a conflict but should be noted if improvements are observed.

Confidentiality:
Reviewers must maintain manuscript confidentiality and inform the Editorial Office if delegating the review to a student or colleague. Neolith Press journals use double-blind peer review, and reviewers should avoid revealing their identity.

Open Review Option:
Some journals offer open review, where reports may be published with the paper and signed by reviewers, contingent on reviewer consent. Otherwise, reports remain confidential.

Post-Decision Access:
Reviewers can access all review reports for manuscripts they reviewed via the online submission system after the final decision.

Manuscript Rating:
    • Reviewers rate:

•     • Originality/Novelty, Significance, Presentation Quality, Scientific Soundness, Reader Interest, Overall Merit, and English Level.

•     • Ensure manuscripts meet ethical standards, report unpublished results, and are original with proper citations.

Overall Recommendation:

•     • Accept as is: Significant, unique contribution, well-presented, verifiable methodology.

•     • Minor revisions: Acceptable with specific improvements or minor corrections.

•     • Major revisions: Merit exists but requires substantial improvements.

•     • Reject: Serious flaws, no original contribution, or impractical revision scope.

Timely Reviews:
Neolith  Press values efficient, high-quality reviews. Contact the editorial office for deadline extensions.

Review Report Content:

•     • Summary of paper aims and main contributions.

•     • Broad comments on strengths and weaknesses.

•     • Specific comments with references to line numbers, tables, or figures.