1. Review Process

Each manuscript submitted to “Recent Advances” journals undergoes a meticulous peer-review process, with only select papers chosen for in-depth evaluation. For comprehensive reviews, we engage a minimum of two external referees. Reviewers are contacted and provided the paper for assessment, with an expected return of comments within 2 weeks for the majority of submissions. Our selection of reviewers is often based on their specific expertise relevant to the manuscript components, ensuring the most informed and valuable feedback. Editors at “Recent Advances” are immensely grateful for your commitment to conducting reviews and will approach you for your input in case a revised manuscript still necessitates expert evaluation. Ultimately, the editor holds the final responsibility for the acceptance or rejection of any submitted manuscript.

2. Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

 Impartial Assessment: Reviews should remain unbiased appraisals of the research’s quality and relevance. If you anticipate any partiality that may affect your impartiality, kindly decline the review invitation or promptly inform the editor of potential conflicts. We also appreciate being informed about any circumstances that could impact your impartiality, such as professional or financial associations with the author(s) or their findings, or any history of personal disputes with the author(s). If a component of the research falls outside your area of expertise, please communicate this to the editor in your review. For further guidance, please refer to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Committee on Publication Ethics. Available online.

Constructive and Punctual Feedback: We value constructive and courteous reviews that respect the author’s intellectual independence. Personal comments should be avoided, as editors at “Recent Advances” may edit or remove comments that hinder constructive discussion. Just as you appreciate timely reviews of your own research, we request that you return your reviews within the specified timeframe you agreed upon when accepting the review request. If unforeseen events prevent a timely review, kindly notify the editor promptly upon request or if your review is already in progress.

Reviewer Anonymity: The peer-review process is conducted anonymously, with “Recent Advances” journal editors safeguarding the identities of reviewers. However, we provide reviewers the autonomy to disclose their identities by signing their reviews. Reviews may be shared with the manuscript’s authors and potentially with other reviewers and the Board of Reviewing Editors.

Confidentiality: Manuscripts submitted to our journals are considered privileged communications and must be treated with the utmost confidentiality. After completing your review, please delete or dispose of all manuscript copies. Do not share the manuscript with colleagues without explicit permission from the editor. Furthermore, we emphasize that reviewers must refrain from personal or professional use of the data or interpretations before publication without the explicit permission of the authors, unless they are preparing an accompanying editorial or commentary for the article.

Artificial Intelligence (AI): The use of large language models and other generative AI tools is not permitted in your review process. Reviewers are expected to draft their own reviews independently and should not seek input from colleagues unless prior approval has been obtained from the editor.

Editorial Policies: We encourage reviewers to familiarize themselves with our editorial policies, especially regarding conflicts of interest, data availability, and materials sharing. For a comprehensive overview, please refer to the Article Policies page on our website Article Policies – Recent Advances.

3. Review Reports

The review report must be prepared in English and contain the following:

Summary: One short paragraph outlining the paper’s aim, main contributions, and strengths.

Review: Comment on the hypothesis, inaccuracies, completeness of the topic covered, the relevance of the topic, the identified knowledge gap, the appropriateness of references, etc.

Specific Comments: Refer to line numbers, tables, or figures to point out inaccuracies or unclear sentences. Focus on the scientific content.

4. Article Evaluation 

Please assess the following aspects:

• Novelty: Is the article original ? Do the results contribute to new knowledge?
• Scope: Does the work fit the journal’s scope?
• Significance: Are the results interpreted correctly and are they significant? Are all conclusions justified and supported by the results?
• Quality: Is the article well written? Are the data and analyses presented appropriately?
• Scientific Soundness: Is the study well-designed and technically sound? Are methods described in detail to allow for reproducibility?
• Overall Merit: Is there a clear benefit to publishing this work? Does it advance current knowledge?
• English Level: Is the English language appropriate and understandable?
• Ethics: If the reviewer identifies any unethical behavior related to the manuscript, such as scientific misconduct, fraud, or plagiarism, they should immediately report these concerns to the in-house editor.

5. Overall Recommendation 

Please provide an overall recommendation for the next processing stage of the manuscript, decisions on revisions, acceptances, or rejections must always be well justified. Choosing from the following options:

• Accept in Present Form: accepted without any further changes.
• Minor Revisions: The article can be accepted after revisions based on the reviewer’s comments. Authors are given four days to make the minor revisions.
• Major Revisions: Acceptance of the article will depend on the revisions made. The author must provide a point-by-point response or a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be addressed. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised article within 7 days, and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments. If the estimated revision time exceeds three months, it will be recommended that authors withdraw their article before resubmitting.
• Reject: The article has serious flaws, lacks originality, and may be rejected without the option for resubmission to the journal.

Thank you for your invaluable contribution to the Recent Advances peer-review process. Your dedication upholds the standards of excellence within our scientific community.