Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines — Next Gen World Reviews (NGWR)

1. The Refereeing System
1.1 Duties of Reviewers
• Maintain quality: Help the editors ensure only rigorous, high-value syntheses are published in NGWR.
• Constructive criticism: Offer specific, actionable feedback that improves clarity, structure, and evidentiary strength.
• Subject-matter expertise: Reviews are assigned to experts with demonstrated scholarship in relevant domains.
• Independent reviews: Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two reviewers; a third may be invited to resolve conflicting recommendations.
• Timeliness: Please accept/decline promptly and complete reviews within the requested timeframe (typically 7–14 days, unless otherwise agreed).

1.2 Confidentiality and Anonymity
• Double-blind: Identities of authors and reviewers are concealed to minimize bias. Keep all materials confidential; do not share or use them for personal advantage.

2. Identifying and Selecting Appropriate Reviewers
2.1 Qualities of a Good Reviewer
• Expertise and objectivity; absence of conflicts of interest; sound judgment; clear, evidence-based reasoning; accurate and timely reports.

2.2 Reviewer Database and Performance
• The editorial office maintains a database of qualified reviewers and monitors review quality and timeliness; unconstructive or inappropriate reviews are not tolerated.

3. A Fair Peer-Review Process
3.1 Minimizing Bias
• Blinded review; multiple independent assessments; consistent standards across submissions; strict confidentiality of all communications.

3.2 Editorial Independence
• Editorial decisions are made without external influence. Editors recuse themselves from decisions on manuscripts where they have conflicts (e.g., co-authorship, shared affiliation).

4. Authors’ Right to Appeal
• Mediation: Editors facilitate exchanges between authors and reviewers to clarify points.
• Additional assessments may be sought when needed.
• Final decision: The Editor-in-Chief (with the editorial board, as appropriate) issues the final decision.

5. Checklists for Reviewers (Review-Article Focus)
Use or adapt the following prompts to structure your report.

5.1 Scholarly Focus and Standards
• Importance and novelty: Does the review address a significant, timely question and add value beyond existing syntheses?
• Title and abstract: Accurate, informative, and aligned with content?
• Scope and objectives: Are aims clearly defined and appropriate for the review type (systematic, scoping, narrative, mini-review, perspective)?
• Evidence base: Is the literature coverage sufficiently comprehensive and current? Are inclusion/exclusion decisions justified?
• Methods transparency (for systematic/scoping reviews): Search strategy (databases, dates, query strings), screening, data extraction, and quality/risk-of-bias assessment clearly described and reproducible?
• Synthesis quality: Are methods of synthesis (qualitative, quantitative, meta-analysis) appropriate and well executed? Are heterogeneity and limitations discussed?
• Interpretation: Are conclusions supported by evidence, limitations acknowledged, and future directions proposed?

5.2 Editorial and Formatting
• Structure and length: Does the manuscript follow journal guidelines for the specific article type?
• Writing quality: Clear, concise, coherent, and technically correct? Figures/tables readable and necessary?
• Referencing: Accurate, consistent, and sufficiently up-to-date?
• Ethics and transparency: Conflicts of interest, funding, protocol registration (where applicable), and data/code availability stated?

6. Writing the Comments
6.1 Constructive Feedback
• Be specific, courteous, and solution-oriented. When recommending additional literature, methods detail, or analyses, explain why they improve rigor or clarity.

6.2 Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations
• Do not share or use manuscript content. Report any suspected ethical issues (plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, undisclosed conflicts) to the editor privately.

Decision Recommendations
When submitting your report, select one of the standard recommendations with a brief rationale: Accept; Minor Revision; Major Revision; Reject. Align your recommendation with the severity and number of issues identified.

How to Accept an Invitation / Request an Extension
• If unavailable or conflicted, decline promptly and, if possible, suggest alternative qualified reviewers.
• If you need more time, inform the editor immediately so timelines can be adjusted.

Conflicts of Interest
• Disclose any financial, professional, or personal relationships that could bias your assessment (recent co-authorships, same department, funded collaborations, advisory roles, etc.). If in doubt, disclose and await editorial guidance.

Contact
Questions about these guidelines or the review process? Please contact the editorial office at editorngwr@ngenpub.com.