GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS

Information for Reviewers

Peer review is crucial for promoting rigor and quality in scientific research. The entire scientific community benefits from a timely, thorough, and balanced peer-review process. The editors of RedoXplore greatly appreciate reviewers' collective contribution to journals and published articles. These guidelines aim to facilitate peer review as a conversation between authors and reviewers, and as an essential element of the publication process.

Reviewer invitations are sent via email from the manuscript management system. The invitation includes the manuscript's title, abstract, and requested review timeframe. After agreeing to review, the reviewer can access the entire manuscript. Reviewers are encouraged to contact the editorial office for additional information or assistance.

The Review Content

The core of any review is an objective assessment of both technical rigor and novelty. Key features include:

·       Outlining the conceptual advance over previous work

·       Providing a specific recommendation

·       Explaining the reasons for that recommendation

·       Summarizing specific strengths and weaknesses

Reviewers are encouraged to comment on figure quality and presentation, as well as statistical methods. Editors can obtain primary data from authors for detailed evaluations if necessary.

Other useful discussion points include:

·       Alternative hypotheses consistent with the data

·       The paper's potential audience within the journal's readership

·       Balanced referencing of pre-existing literature

Cover Comments to Editors

Reviewers may provide confidential comments to editors. However, general concerns affecting the overall recommendation should be clearly indicated in the comments to authors. The tone of comments to authors should be consistent with those to editors.

Comments to editors can serve as an executive summary of the author comments. This is also an appropriate place to discuss suspected ethical violations in research or presentation.

Confidentiality and Best Practices

Reviews should be critical but avoid dismissive language and personalized criticisms. Timely reviews benefit the scientific community. Reviewers should inform the editorial office if they require more than the standard review time.

Reviewers should be sensitive to potential conflicts of interest and decline to review or seek editorial advice when uncertain. Unpublished information in manuscripts should not be used for the reviewer's research or financial decisions.

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality of unpublished work. Obtaining additional advice from colleagues requires prior editorial approval. Discussing unpublished manuscripts at lab meetings or journal clubs is inappropriate. Collaboration with trainees in manuscript evaluation is acceptable, but the invited reviewer is responsible for the report's content and accuracy.

The journal will not disclose reviewer identities to external parties without specific consent. Reviewers should refrain from discussing manuscripts with authors and from commenting on authors' presumed qualifications, language skills, or identity.

Reviewing Revised Manuscripts

Referees who review one version of a manuscript should commit to reviewing future revisions if necessary.

Declining to Review

If you are unable to review a paper for RedoXplore, we very much appreciate suggestions for alternate reviewers that would be equally qualified to evaluate the paper.. Consider career stage, and geography when making suggestions.