Reviewer Guidelines

1. The Refereeing System

1.1. Duties of Referees

  • Maintain Quality: Assist the editor in maintaining the academic quality and integrity of papers published in NGMR.

  • Constructive Criticism: Provide authors with feedback aimed at improving the clarity, accuracy, and impact of their manuscripts.

  • Expertise Recognition: Referees are selected based on recognized expertise and scholarly contributions in relevant disciplines.

  • Independent Reviews: Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent referees. If substantial disagreement arises, a third referee may be consulted.

  • Timely Response: Reviewers are expected to respond to the editor’s invitation within 7 days. If unable to complete the review within the agreed timeline, the reviewer should inform the editor promptly.

1.2. Confidentiality and Anonymity

  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, copy, or discuss their contents with unauthorized individuals.

  • Anonymity: The identities of both reviewers and authors are kept confidential throughout the review process to ensure impartial evaluations.

2. Identifying and Selecting Appropriate Reviewers

2.1. Qualities of a Good Reviewer

  • Expertise: Proficiency in one or more areas relevant to the manuscript’s subject.

  • Objectivity: Ability to assess work without personal bias.

  • No Conflicts of Interest: Disclose any potential conflicts and decline the invitation if unable to review impartially.

  • Good Judgment: Assess the originality, significance, and validity of the research.

  • Clear Thinking & Writing Skills: Provide logical, well-structured, and constructive feedback.

  • Accuracy: Ensure that evaluations are factually correct and reliable.

  • Timeliness: Submit reviews within the agreed period.

2.2. Database of Reviewers

  • The editorial office maintains a database of qualified reviewers across disciplines.

  • Reviewer performance (quality, thoroughness, and timeliness) is monitored. Poor-quality or unprofessional reviews are not tolerated.

3. A Fair Peer-Review Process

3.1. Minimizing Bias

  • Blinded Review: NGMR uses a double-blind system to minimize bias.

  • Multiple Reviewers: Research and review articles are evaluated by multiple referees for balanced feedback.

  • Consistent Standards: The same evaluation criteria are applied to all submissions.

  • Confidentiality: All communications between authors, reviewers, and editors remain confidential unless all parties agree otherwise or in rare cases of ethical/legal necessity.

3.2. Editorial Independence

  • Unbiased Decisions: Editors make independent decisions without influence from external parties.

  • Conflict of Interest: Editorial board members do not participate in decisions regarding their own manuscripts.

4. Authors’ Right to Appeal

4.1. Appeal Process

  • Mediation: Editors facilitate exchanges between authors and reviewers if disagreements arise.

  • Additional Reviews: If consensus cannot be reached, additional reviewers may be assigned.

  • Final Decision: The editor’s decision, in consultation with the editorial board, is final.

5. Checklists for Reviewers

5.1. Scientific Focus and Standards

  • Importance & Novelty: Is the research significant and original?

  • Title & Abstract: Are they accurate, concise, and reflective of the content?

  • Objectives: Are the research aims clearly defined?

  • Methods & Experiments: Are they sound, ethical, and appropriate to the research question?

5.2. Editorial and Formatting

  • Length & Structure: Does the manuscript follow the journal’s format and length guidelines?

  • Writing Quality: Is the text clear, grammatically correct, and logically organized?

6. Writing the Comments

6.1. Constructive Feedback

  • Provide clear, concise, and evidence-based comments.

  • Suggest improvements in methodology, analysis, or clarity.

  • Recommend additional references, data, or experiments if necessary.

6.2. Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations

  • Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript’s content and review process.

  • Do not use information from the manuscript for personal research or gain.