For Reviewers

For Reviewers

Research Floor recognizes the essential contribution of peer reviewers to maintaining the quality, credibility, and academic integrity of scholarly publications. Peer review plays a vital role in evaluating the originality, scientific validity, relevance, and overall quality of submitted research. We value the time, expertise, and professional commitment of researchers, academicians, scientists, and subject specialists who contribute to the evaluation of manuscripts. Through constructive and independent assessments, reviewers help authors improve their work and assist editors in making informed publication decisions. Research Floor encourages reviewers to maintain the highest standards of academic integrity, objectivity, confidentiality, and professional conduct throughout the peer-review process.

Reviewer Responsibilities and Guidelines

Reviewers are expected to provide fair, independent, constructive, and evidence-based assessments of manuscripts within their areas of expertise. Their evaluation should focus on the scientific quality, originality, relevance, methodology, interpretation of results, clarity of presentation, and contribution of the submitted work to existing knowledge. Reviewers should identify both the strengths and limitations of a manuscript and provide specific recommendations that may help authors improve the quality and reliability of their research. Comments should be professional, respectful, and sufficiently detailed to assist the Academic Editor in reaching an appropriate editorial decision. Personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, or unsupported allegations should be avoided.

Accepting or Declining a Review Invitation

Researchers invited to review a manuscript should first consider whether the subject falls within their academic expertise and whether they have sufficient time to complete the assessment within the requested period. Reviewers should accept invitations only when they are confident that they can provide an objective and scientifically informed evaluation. If a manuscript falls outside their area of specialization, or if they are unable to complete the review within the specified timeframe, they should decline the invitation promptly. Reviewers should also inform the editorial office of any circumstances that may affect their ability to provide an independent assessment.

Confidentiality of Manuscripts

All manuscripts submitted for peer review must be treated as confidential scholarly documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or discuss manuscript content with unauthorized individuals without prior permission from the journal. Unpublished data, findings, methodologies, and ideas obtained during the review process must not be used for personal, professional, or research advantage. Reviewers should not contact authors directly regarding a manuscript under review unless explicitly authorized by the editorial office. Confidentiality must be maintained even after the review process has been completed or a publication decision has been made.

Competing Interests and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interests before accepting or proceeding with a review assignment. Such interests may include financial relationships, professional collaborations, institutional affiliations, personal relationships, academic competition, or other circumstances that could influence their judgment. Reviewers who identify a significant conflict of interest should notify the editorial office and decline the assignment where impartial assessment cannot reasonably be ensured. The editorial office will determine whether an alternative reviewer is required.

Criteria for Manuscript Evaluation

Reviewers are encouraged to assess manuscripts systematically and consider the following aspects during their evaluation:

• Originality and Novelty: Assess whether the manuscript presents original research, new findings, innovative approaches, or meaningful contributions to the existing body of knowledge.
• Relevance and Significance: Evaluate whether the subject is relevant to the journal's scope and whether the study provides a meaningful scientific, academic, practical, or theoretical contribution.
• Scientific Methodology: Examine the appropriateness of the research design, experimental procedures, sampling methods, analytical techniques, statistical approaches, and overall methodology.
• Results and Interpretation: Determine whether the results are clearly presented, adequately supported by the evidence, and interpreted appropriately without unsupported conclusions or exaggeration.
• Literature Review and References: Assess whether relevant and current literature has been considered and whether the cited references adequately support the statements and arguments presented.
• Presentation and Organization: Evaluate the clarity, logical structure, language, terminology, tables, figures, illustrations, and overall readability of the manuscript.
• Research Ethics and Integrity: Consider whether the research appears to comply with applicable ethical requirements, including appropriate approval, informed consent, responsible data presentation, authorship transparency, and proper acknowledgment of sources, where relevant.
• Limitations and Conclusions: Determine whether the study's limitations are adequately acknowledged and whether the conclusions are consistent with the objectives, methodology, and findings.

Preparation of Peer Review Reports

Reviewers should prepare their reports in a clear, balanced, and constructive manner. Major scientific concerns should be explained with sufficient detail, and suggestions for improvement should be specific and relevant to the manuscript. Reviewers may distinguish between major issues that affect the validity or interpretation of the research and minor issues involving language, formatting, references, or presentation. Where possible, reviewers should provide recommendations that help authors address identified weaknesses without introducing unnecessary or unrelated requirements.

Reviewers should avoid demanding citations to their own publications or to particular journals unless such references are genuinely necessary for scientific completeness. Recommendations should be based on scholarly relevance rather than personal citation interests. Any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, image manipulation, unethical research practices, or other potential misconduct should be communicated confidentially to the Academic Editor rather than presented as an unsupported public accusation.

Editorial Recommendations

After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers are generally requested to provide an overall recommendation to assist the Academic Editor in making an editorial decision. Depending on the journal's review system, recommendations may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. The recommendation should be supported by the comments and scientific assessment provided in the review report. Reviewers should understand that the final publication decision rests with the responsible editor and that their recommendation is advisory rather than binding.

Timeliness of Peer Review

Research Floor values timely peer review and encourages reviewers to submit their reports within the deadline specified in the review invitation. Prompt reviews help maintain an efficient editorial process and reduce unnecessary delays for authors. If additional time is required, reviewers should contact the editorial office before the deadline to request an extension. If a reviewer is unable to complete an assigned assessment, they should inform the editorial team as early as possible so that an alternative reviewer can be appointed.

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers must exercise caution when using artificial intelligence tools or other external technologies during manuscript evaluation. Confidential manuscripts and unpublished research information must not be uploaded to publicly accessible AI platforms or third-party systems that may retain, process, or disclose the submitted content without appropriate authorization. AI tools should not replace the reviewer's independent scientific judgment, subject expertise, or responsibility for the accuracy of the review report. Reviewers must follow the journal's applicable confidentiality and AI-use requirements and disclose any permitted use of AI assistance when requested by the editorial office.

Ethical Conduct and Professional Integrity

Reviewers are expected to maintain professional standards throughout the review process and treat all authors fairly and respectfully, irrespective of nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, religion, political beliefs, or other personal characteristics. Reviewers must not use their position to delay publication unfairly, obtain an academic advantage, appropriate unpublished ideas, or influence editorial decisions for personal or commercial benefit. Any concern regarding research or publication misconduct should be reported responsibly to the editorial office. Research Floor expects reviewers to follow recognized publication ethics principles and relevant guidance provided by organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Revised Manuscripts and Re-Review

Where a manuscript is returned to authors for revision, reviewers may be invited to assess the revised version to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the previous comments. Reviewers should evaluate the responses objectively and focus on the scientific issues raised during the initial assessment. If the authors have not adequately addressed important concerns, reviewers should clearly explain the remaining issues. Additional recommendations should be limited to matters that are relevant to the scientific quality and reliability of the manuscript.

Recognition and Reviewer Acknowledgment

Research Floor appreciates the valuable time and expertise contributed by reviewers in supporting scholarly communication. Appropriate recognition may be provided through reviewer acknowledgments, certificates of appreciation, or other forms of professional recognition, depending on the practices of the individual journal. Reviewer identities will be handled in accordance with the journal's peer-review model and confidentiality policy. Any public acknowledgment will be subject to the applicable privacy and consent arrangements.

Contact and Support

Reviewers who require clarification regarding a review invitation, manuscript assessment, competing interests, review deadlines, or the submission of their reports are encouraged to contact the editorial office of the relevant journal. All reviewer-related enquiries should include the manuscript reference number and journal name, where available. Research Floor values the contribution of its reviewers and remains committed to supporting a fair, transparent, confidential, and academically rigorous peer-review process.