Reviewer Guidelines
Papers that meet the guidelines established by the journal will be anonymously reviewed by two expert evaluators in the relevant thematic area or with publications or research experience related to the topic.
Reviewers assess the scientific rigor and originality of the work, provide observations, and, if necessary, make recommendations. Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the editor will communicate the reasoned outcome of the evaluation to the corresponding author.
When agreeing to review a text, evaluators confirm that they:
- Have the relevant academic knowledge and experience.
- Have sufficient time to complete the review.
- Assume responsibility for the review and commit to impartiality.
- Do not have any conflicts of interest regarding the content or the authors.
- Commit to maintaining confidentiality.
The role of the reviewer is not that of a proofreader. Authors retain full control over their text. While reviewers—and sometimes editors—may suggest changes, it is ultimately up to the authors to decide whether to implement them. If changes are not made, authors may justify their decisions, and editors or reviewers will act at their discretion.
Review Objectives
Reviewers provide the editor with a clear and honest assessment of the article’s quality and its suitability for publication in the journal. They highlight which aspects, based on their knowledge and experience, should be improved to make the text a better candidate for publication.
They are also expected to offer constructive criticism to help authors improve their text for potential publication or, if not suitable, explain the limitations that render it unpublishable.
Reviewer Responsibilities (See the Reviewers’ section on Publication Ethics)
- Conflict of interest. Decline to review an article if any financial, professional, or other relationships could affect your impartiality.
- Familiarity with the topic. Notify the editorial team if you lack the necessary academic or scientific expertise to evaluate the article.
- Neutrality and impartiality. Recuse yourself if you recognize the author(s) or were involved in the research in any capacity.
- Time commitment. Ensure you have adequate time to conduct a thorough, fair, and rigorous review.
- Confidentiality. Do not share or discuss the article’s content. Do not use it for personal or institutional purposes before, during, or after the review process.
- Constructive feedback. Provide clear, respectful, and unbiased feedback. Discriminatory or hostile comments will not be tolerated.
- Recommendations. Do not suggest citations to your own work unless strictly necessary and relevant.
- Scientific collaboration. Offer recommendations that improve the manuscript without compromising reviewer anonymity.
- Ethical concerns. Report any issues such as plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data falsification, or failure to protect personal data.
Basic Review Procedure
- You will be notified via email (through the OJS system) when assigned an article.
- You have 3 days to accept the assignment. Upon acceptance, you have 15 days to complete the first-round review and submit it via the evaluation form on the OJS platform.
- If the manuscript is revised, the updated version will be sent to you. You then have 3 days to accept the second review and 7 days to submit your final verdict.
The list of reviewers is updated annually on the Limaq website. To apply as a reviewer, please email [email protected] with your CV.
Review Structure (OJS Form)
The review consists of three parts:
- Issues of Form: Comments on language, formatting, and referencing.
- Issues of Substance: Comments on theoretical framework, originality, structure, writing, and results.
2.1 Comments to the Author:
General Comments: Summarize the study (2–4 sentences), its key findings, and its relevance to the journal. Mention whether it is well-written and suitable for publication. Highlight reasons for rejection or the need for major revisions, providing detailed suggestions for improvement.
Specific Comments: Address each section of the article point-by-point. If major revisions or rejection are recommended, you may choose to provide detailed feedback after resubmission, though comments are always appreciated.
2.2 Comments to the Editor:
This confidential section should briefly explain the key factors influencing your decision. For example:
- "This is an excellent article. The topic is relevant, and while there are some errors, I recommend publication after minor corrections."
- "The article lacks originality but is well-written and may still be of interest."
- "The article is poorly written but salvageable if thoroughly revised."
- "I recommend rejection due to numerous unresolved issues outlined in my comments to the author."
Here, you may also raise concerns about ethical issues such as plagiarism or data fabrication.
3. Contribution Type and Evaluation Outcome
- Accept Submission: Indicates that the article is exceptional upon first review and is ready to proceed to Editing in its current form.
- Revisions Required: Indicates that the article requires minor changes that can be reviewed and approved by the editor. Generally, the manuscript is considered nearly ready for publication except for small formatting details:
- There are minor spelling or syntactic errors.
- Some information has not been properly referenced.
- A secondary aspect of the text needs to be clarified, which does not affect the article’s key conclusions.
These minor issues, though not major, must be identified and detailed by the reviewer, as correcting them is essential to make the text fully intelligible.
- Resubmit for Review: Indicates that the article requires major changes and another round of peer review. Although the manuscript shows potential, there are still important aspects that need improvement and require rewriting large portions. For example:
- There are serious limitations in the analysis that may affect the results.
- Conclusions are drawn based on facts not supported by the presented data.
- The text, or one of its sections, is excessively long without justification.
- There is no information on whether the study meets required ethical standards.
- The text is grammatically incorrect or unintelligible in some parts.
- In statistical studies, the author does not define populations or selection criteria.
- Resubmit Elsewhere: Indicates that the article does not appear to be a good fit for the journal's focus and scope.
- Decline Submission: Indicates that the article is not suitable for the journal, either due to form or substance, and is therefore rejected. For example:
- It presents information that does not contribute to the established knowledge on the subject.
- The writing is so poor that it requires a complete rewrite.
- See Comments:If none of the above recommendations are appropriate, you may leave a comment for the editor explaining your concerns in detail.
