Dapress Journal logo
Login Register Submit Manuscript

GUIDE FOR REVIEWERS
For All Journals Published on DAPresses

This is a comprehensive guide to reviewers for DAPresses Journals and other journals hosted by institutions, societies and publishers. It standardises and maintains a high-quality, ethical, fair, and interdisciplinary peer-review process that provides authors with meaningful feedback to improve their work. The review process supports academic integrity, scholarly excellence, and global best practices.

1. Purpose of This Guide

Reviewers are essential to scholarly integrity. This guide outlines:

  • Expectations for reviewers
  • Ethical and professional standards
  • How to evaluate manuscripts
  • How to provide constructive interdisciplinary feedback
  • Responsibilities within the DAPresses publishing ecosystem

2. Role of Reviewers in the DAPresses Knowledge Ecosystem

  • Maintaining academic quality
  • Ensuring ethical and rigorous scholarship
  • Supporting authors with constructive feedback
  • Strengthening interdisciplinary communication
  • Enhancing journal reputation and indexing readiness

Editors-in-Chief, Sectional Editors, and Reviewers form the Dialogic Joint Editorial Board ecosystem.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

3.1 Before Accepting a Review

  • Confirm expertise
  • Declare conflicts of interest
  • Ensure timely completion
  • Decline if unable

3.2 During the Review

  • Evaluate objectively and fairly
  • Maintain confidentiality
  • Provide clear, constructive feedback
  • Identify ethical issues
  • Support interdisciplinary clarity

3.3 After the Review

  • Submit recommendation (Accept, Minor/ Major Revision, Reject)
  • Provide comments for authors and editors
  • Respond to follow-up queries

4. Ethical Standards for Reviewers

  • Confidentiality of manuscripts
  • Impartiality without bias
  • No use of unpublished data
  • Transparency of conflicts of interest
  • Respectful and constructive feedback

Reviewers should follow COPE ethical guidelines.

5. Evaluating Manuscripts: Key Criteria

5.1 Originality

Novelty, contribution, and relevance to the field.

5.2 Methodology

Appropriateness, clarity, and reproducibility.

5.3 Clarity

Logical structure, readable writing, proper referencing.

5.4 Ethics

Plagiarism check, ethical approval, transparency.

5.5 AI Use

Detect undisclosed AI use, fabricated citations, or over-reliance on AI tools.

6. Writing Constructive Reviewer Reports

  • Start with a summary
  • Highlight strengths first
  • Give actionable feedback
  • Avoid vague comments
  • Maintain professionalism and empathy
  • Consider interdisciplinary readers

7. Supporting Interdisciplinary Communication

  • Flag discipline-specific jargon
  • Encourage clarity for wider audiences
  • Improve accessibility and readability
  • Ensure cross-disciplinary understanding

8. Identifying and Reporting Ethical Issues

  • Plagiarism
  • Data fabrication or manipulation
  • Duplicate publication
  • Conflict of interest
  • Improper AI usage

Report concerns to the Editor-in-Chief or info@dialogicsl.com.

9. Reviewer Conduct and Professionalism

  • Meet deadlines or request extensions
  • Maintain scholarly tone
  • Avoid personal criticism
  • Do not contact authors directly
  • Communicate only via editorial office

10. Recognition and Benefits for Reviewers

  • Certificates of review
  • Website acknowledgment
  • Editorial board opportunities
  • Conference invitations
  • Global academic visibility

11. Reviewer Workflow Summary

  1. Receive invitation
  2. Accept or decline
  3. Conduct ethical review
  4. Submit report
  5. Respond to clarifications
  6. Continue collaboration

12. Support and Reporting

For support or reporting ethical issues, contact the Editor-in-Chief or email info@dialogicsl.com.