Reviewer Guidelines

Guidelines for Reviewers

OAORIGINALS relies on the dedication and expertise of its volunteer reviewers to uphold the integrity of its peer review process. These reviewers, distinguished specialists in their respective fields, are best equipped to assess the quality and significance of submitted research. To maintain fairness and objectivity, OAORIGINALS follows a single-anonymized review system, ensuring that reviewers' identities remain confidential from the authors throughout the evaluation process.

I. Peer Review Process

1. The manuscript submission process begins with the author submitting their work and receiving a unique manuscript identification number. The Support Office then conducts a technical evaluation to ensure the manuscript’s formatting and style align with the Instructions for Authors.

2. Next, an editor reviews the submission to determine whether it should proceed to a full peer review. If deemed unsuitable for further evaluation, the editor sends an immediate rejection decision via email. However, if the manuscript is selected for peer review, the editor typically assigns two external reviewers to assess its quality and relevance.

3. Once the reviewers agree to evaluate the manuscript, they submit their reports to the editor, who carefully examines their feedback and makes a final decision. The Support Office then communicates this decision to the author.

4. If the manuscript requires revisions, the author modifies the paper based on the reviewers’ comments and resubmits it. The revised paper undergoes the same review cycle, though the editor may opt to accept it without additional reviewer input.

OAORIGINALS upholds a peer review process that is fair, unbiased, and timely. Manuscript acceptance or rejection is determined based on its significance to the field, originality, clarity, validity, and alignment with the journal’s scope and objectives.

To maintain high ethical standards, OAORIGINALS adheres to established guidelines and best practices, including the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals issued by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) ICMJE Recommendations. It also follows the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, a joint statement by COPE, DOAJ, WAME, and OASPA Best Practices.

Reviewers are encouraged to carefully read all relevant instructions, ethics policies, and journal guidelines before conducting their review. For any inquiries, please reach out to the OAORIGINALS Support Office.

Email: editor@oaoriginals.com

II. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

1. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to submit their comments within two weeks from the date they agreed to review. If meeting the deadline becomes challenging, promptly notify the Support Office so appropriate measures—such as an extension or reassignment—can be arranged.

2. Conflict of Interest

Before commencing the review, reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editor. These may include past or present involvement in the research, financial ties, affiliations with the authors or institutions, collaborations, or any personal or professional relationships that could compromise objectivity. If such conflicts exist, the reviewer must decline the assignment, allowing the editor to select an unbiased reviewer.

3. Confidentiality

The peer review process is strictly confidential. Reviewers must refrain from discussing or sharing any manuscript details before or after the review. Manuscripts are privileged documents and should not be passed on to colleagues or third parties without prior approval from the editor.

Prior to publication, reviewers must not reference the research in their own work, retain copies of reviewed manuscripts, or use their content for personal, financial, or professional gain. Additionally, manuscripts must not be uploaded to software or AI-assisted tools where confidentiality cannot be guaranteed.

4. Constructive Feedback

Reviews should be objective, professional, and constructive. While identifying areas for improvement, reviewers should provide specific suggestions for enhancement. Negative feedback should be presented in a respectful and supportive manner, avoiding hostility or personal remarks.

5. Impartiality

Reviews must be based solely on scientific merit, originality, quality of writing, and relevance to OAORIGINALS Journal’s scope. Reviewer evaluations must remain free from personal or professional bias, ensuring fairness regardless of the authors’ race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or nationality. If a bias is recognized at any point, the reviewer must inform the editor immediately.

6. Expertise

Reviewers should only accept assignments in areas where they have sufficient expertise to provide a thorough evaluation. If any aspect of the manuscript falls outside their domain of knowledge, they should inform the Support Office to determine whether to proceed with their review or assign an alternate reviewer.

7. Prior Manuscript Assessments

If reviewing a manuscript previously assessed for another journal, reviewers should treat it as a new submission. Changes may have been made in response to earlier comments, and evaluation criteria may differ between journals.

8. Ethical Standards

If any ethical misconduct is suspected, reviewers must promptly notify the editor. For general ethical guidelines, refer to OAORIGINALS publication ethics policies.

9. Use of AI-Assisted Tools

Reviewers are prohibited from uploading manuscripts to AI-assisted tools where confidentiality is not assured. If such technologies are used to facilitate the review, disclosure to the Support Office is required.

For further clarification or assistance, please contact the OAORIGINALS Journal Support Office

III. Invitation for Peer Review

1. Invitation and Acceptance

Reviewer invitations are sent via email through the submission system. The email contains manuscript details—including the title, author names, and abstract—to help reviewers determine whether the topic aligns with their expertise.

If a reviewer is unable to accept the assignment, they should click the decline link in the email. If possible, suggesting an alternative reviewer would be greatly appreciated.

Upon accepting the invitation, the reviewer will receive a follow-up email with login credentials for the online system, allowing access to the manuscript in PDF or HTML format. The email will also include instructions for submitting comments through the system.

2. Reviewing Revised Manuscripts

When a manuscript undergoes revisions, it is typically sent back to some or all of the original reviewers for re-evaluation. If assigned to review a previously assessed manuscript, reviewers should focus on verifying whether the requested changes have been implemented rather than introducing new concerns.

IV. Your Comments

1. General Review Standards

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript aligns with OAORIGINALS Journal’s scope and objectives while demonstrating originality, validity, and relevance to its readership.

Key aspects to evaluate:

· Clarity & Structure: Ensure the writing is concise and well-organized, making it easy for readers to grasp the content.

· Scientific Accuracy: Examine the research for missing information or methodological flaws and provide constructive feedback.

· Specific Criticism: Any critiques must be well-supported with evidence and relevant references to aid both editors and authors.

· Respectful Commentary: Avoid personal criticism, derogatory remarks, or unfounded accusations.

· Fair Citations: Refrain from suggesting citations of your own work unless academically justified.

· Anonymity: OAORIGINALS follows a single-anonymized review process, so reviewers must remain anonymous.

2. Key Considerations for Review

When assessing a manuscript, reviewers should focus on the following:

· Significance to the research community.

· Potential impact on the journal’s readership.

· Identified weaknesses requiring revision.

· Accuracy of the title, abstract, and keywords.

· Completeness of figures, tables, and content.

· Appropriateness of references and their accuracy.

· Clarity & readability of the English language.

· Aim clarity and consistency.

· Statistical accuracy, if relevant.

· Presentation of substantial data in results.

· Strength of conclusions, ensuring they are supported by data.

3. Confidential Comments to the Editor

The submission system includes a Confidential Comments to the Editor section, where reviewers can provide remarks visible only to the editorial team. This section should be used for reporting potential conflicts of interest, ethical concerns, or other sensitive feedback that should not be shared with the authors.

4. Comments for Authors

Reviewer feedback should begin with an introductory paragraph summarizing the overall impression of the paper. Detailed comments can follow in two sections:

· Major issues requiring substantial revision.

· Minor points related to style or clarity.

It is inappropriate to include statements regarding the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript in the review comments.

5. Final Publication Decisions

While reviewer feedback plays a crucial role, final decisions on manuscript acceptance, revision, or rejection are made by OAORIGINALS Journal’s editorial team after considering all reviewer reports.