Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers bear the responsibility of ensuring objectivity, professionalism, impartiality, and confidentiality in the assessment of content quality.

Research Mosaic (RM) follows a double-blind peer-review process, where the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. The purpose of this process is to improve the quality of the content and the scientific material under review, ultimately enhancing the published work.

Conscientious review is a time-consuming but essential effort to ensure the quality of scientific journals. RM is deeply grateful for the time and effort reviewers dedicate to this process. The journal adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and strives to ensure that the review process is fair, unbiased, and timely.

Decisions regarding the acceptance of a manuscript for publication depend on the importance of the investigated issue, as well as the originality, clarity, validity, and relevance of the work to the scope of RM. Therefore, reviewers play a critical role in determining whether an article should be accepted for publication.

General Notes

  • Reviews should be conducted fairly and objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. If the research reported in the manuscript is flawed, focus on critiquing the science, not the scientist. Personal criticism can lead an author to disregard useful feedback, reducing the value of your review. Criticisms should be objective, constructive, and aimed at helping the author improve their paper.
  • You should decline to review manuscripts if you have conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the manuscript.
  • If your previous or current connection with the author(s) or their institution might be perceived as a conflict of interest, even if no actual conflict exists, please disclose this in your confidential comments to the editor. If in doubt, contact the editor who requested the review before accepting.
  • Respect the confidentiality of the manuscript, which is provided to you in confidence. Do not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in your own work. If you feel a colleague is more qualified to review the paper, seek permission from the editor before passing the manuscript on to that person. Both your review and recommendation should remain confidential.
  • If you choose to remain anonymous, ensure that your comments to the authors do not unintentionally reveal your identity.

Comments to the Editor

Your comments to the Editor will be submitted only to the Managing Editor and the Editor-in-Chief. These comments should include any potential conflicts of interest. Comments and constructive criticism regarding the manuscript should be placed in the Comments to the Author section.

Comments to the Author(s)

Your comments to the Author(s) will be submitted to the Managing Editor and the Editor-in-Chief. They will also be communicated to the author(s) and to the other anonymous reviewers of the manuscript once the editor has made a decision.

Comments should be constructive and designed to enhance the manuscript. You should consider yourself the authors’ mentor. Make your comments as complete and detailed as possible. Express your views clearly, supporting your points with arguments and references as necessary. Include clear opinions about the strengths, weaknesses, and relevance of the manuscript, its originality, and its importance to the field. Specific comments that cite line numbers are most helpful. If you feel unqualified to address certain aspects of the manuscript, please include a statement to identify these areas.

Begin by identifying the major contributions of the paper. What are its major strengths and weaknesses, and how suitable is it for publication? Please include both general and specific comments on these questions, and emphasize your most significant points.

Support your general comments, positive or negative, with specific evidence.

If you wish to make comments directly on the manuscript PDF using the Note tool, you may do so. However, we do not expect you to copy-edit the manuscript. If you annotate the PDF, please also include a summary of your general comments. You may also upload other documents (e.g., your review as a document or useful references). The journal editorial assistant will remove your identity from the properties of these documents to maintain your anonymity.

Points to Consider in your Review include:

  • Is the topic of the manuscript appropriate for RM?
  • Is the information of significant interest to the broad readership of RM?
  • Do the title, abstract, keywords, introduction, and conclusions accurately and consistently reflect the major points of the paper?
  • Is the writing concise, easy to follow, and interesting, without repetition?
  • Is the aim clearly stated?
  • Are the methods appropriate, scientifically sound, current, and described clearly enough that the work could be repeated by someone else?
  • Is the research ethical, and have the appropriate approvals/consent been obtained?
  • Are appropriate statistical/econometric analyses used?
  • Are the statistical analyses sufficiently justified and explained?
  • Are statements of significance justified?
  • When results are stated in the text of the paper, are they supported by data?
  • Can you verify the results easily by examining tables and figures?
  • Are any of the results counterintuitive?
  • Are all tables and figures necessary, clearly labeled, well-designed, and readily interpretable?
  • Is the information in the tables and figures redundant?
  • Is the information in the tables and figures repeated in the text?
  • Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?
  • Are the references cited the most appropriate to support the manuscript?
  • Are citations provided for all assertions of fact not supported by the data in this paper?
  • Are any key citations missing?
  • Consider the length of the manuscript relative to the content. Should any portions of the paper be expanded, condensed, combined, or deleted? (Please be specific in your advice, and don't simply advise overall shortening by x%.)
  • Does the manuscript comply with the Instructions for Authors?

Please also Comment on any Possible Research or Publication Misconduct, such as:

  • Does this manuscript report data or conclusions already published or in the press? If so, please provide details.
  • Has the author plagiarized another publication?
  • Is there any indication that the data have been fabricated or inappropriately manipulated?
  • Have the authors declared all relevant competing interests?