Reviewer Guidelines

Overview

Peer reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the quality, credibility, and integrity of scholarly publishing. Veridion Press relies on the expertise and professionalism of reviewers to support fair, rigorous, and constructive evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

These guidelines outline the responsibilities, ethical expectations, and review process for reviewers engaged with Veridion Press publications, including journals, books, edited volumes, and conference proceedings.

Role of the Reviewer

Reviewers are expected to provide independent, objective, and scholarly assessments of manuscripts to assist editors in making informed editorial decisions.

The purpose of peer review is to:

  • Assess the originality and scholarly contribution of the work
  • Evaluate methodological rigor and validity
  • Identify strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement
  • Support the integrity of the scholarly record

Reviewer Eligibility and Selection

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject-area expertise
  • Academic qualifications and research experience
  • Absence of conflicts of interest

Reviewers should accept review invitations only when they have sufficient expertise and availability to complete the review within the requested timeframe.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review must be treated as strictly confidential.

Reviewers must:

  • Not share manuscripts with others without editorial permission
  • Not use unpublished material for personal or professional advantage
  • Not discuss the manuscript outside the review process

Confidentiality applies both during and after the review process.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest, including but not limited to:

  • Personal or professional relationships with authors
  • Institutional affiliations with authors
  • Financial interests related to the research
  • Direct competition or collaborative relationships

If a conflict exists, reviewers should decline the review invitation.

Conducting the Review

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts fairly, objectively, and constructively.

Key Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should consider:

  • Originality and relevance of the research
  • Soundness of methodology and analysis
  • Clarity, structure, and coherence of the manuscript
  • Appropriate use and citation of relevant literature
  • Ethical compliance, where applicable

Constructive Feedback

Reviewer comments should:

  • Be clear, specific, and professional
  • Focus on improving the quality of the manuscript
  • Avoid personal criticism or inappropriate language
  • Distinguish between major and minor issues

Comments intended for editors should be submitted separately from comments shared with authors.

Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe
  • Inform the editorial office promptly if delays are unavoidable

Timely reviews are essential to maintaining an efficient and fair editorial process.

Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers must adhere to high ethical standards and must not:

  • Engage in plagiarism or misappropriation of ideas
  • Suggest citations for personal gain
  • Attempt to influence editorial decisions improperly
  • Use confidential information for advantage

Suspected ethical issues, including plagiarism, data fabrication, or authorship concerns, should be reported confidentially to the editor.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts to AI tools or third-party platforms that compromise confidentiality.

AI tools may be used only for limited support (e.g., grammar checks) and must not replace scholarly judgment or introduce confidentiality risks.

Any AI use must comply with ethical review standards and confidentiality obligations.

Anonymity and Peer Review Models

Depending on the publication, peer review may be:

  • Single-blind
  • Double-blind
  • Open peer review

Reviewers must respect the anonymity requirements of the assigned review model.

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

  • Accept
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject

Final editorial decisions are made by the editor and may not directly reflect reviewer recommendations.

Acknowledgment and Recognition

Veridion Press recognizes the valuable contribution of reviewers.

Where appropriate, reviewer recognition may include:

  • Annual acknowledgment lists
  • Certificates of contribution
  • Reviewer appreciation initiatives

Reviewer confidentiality is always respected.

Misconduct and Breach of Guidelines

Failure to comply with these guidelines may result in:

  • Removal from the reviewer pool
  • Notification to editors or institutions, where appropriate

Serious breaches are handled in accordance with COPE guidance.

Reviewer Support and Communication

Reviewers may contact the editorial office for:

  • Clarification on review expectations
  • Ethical concerns or queries
  • Extensions or availability updates

Clear communication supports a fair and efficient review process.

Contact Information

📧 Email: support@veridionpress.org