Reviewer Guidelines

Invitation to Review

Manuscripts submitted to LJAAS are reviewed by at least two experts, who can be volunteer reviewers, members of the Reviewer Board, or reviewers suggested by the academic editor during the preliminary check. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and to provide a recommendation to the editor on whether a manuscript should be accepted, require revisions, or should be rejected.

We ask invited reviewers to:

  • • accept or decline any invitations as soon as possible (based on the manuscript title and abstract);
  • • suggest alternative reviewers if an invitation must be declined;
  • • request a deadline extension as soon as possible in case more time is required to provide a comprehensive report.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

We ask reviewers to declare any potential conflicts of interest and email the journal Editorial Office if they are unsure if something constitutes a potential conflict of interest. Possible conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to):

• Working in the same institute as one of the authors.
• Co-author or collaborator within the past three years.
• Close personal relationship, rivalry, or antipathy.
• Financial gain or loss from the publication.
• Non-financial conflicts (political, religious, etc.).

Reviewers should disclose any conflicts of interest that may be perceived as bias for or against the paper or authors. Please kindly note that if reviewers are asked to assess a manuscript they previously reviewed for another journal, this is not considered to be a conflict of interest. In this case, reviewers should feel free to let the Editorial Office know if the manuscript has been improved or not compared to the previous version.

Reviewers are also recommended to read the relevant descriptions in the Ethical Guidelines For Peer Reviewers by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewer’s commitment to maintaining the highest standards of excellence and integrity is crucial to the quality of the scholarly work we publish.

General Guidelines for Assessment

1. Strict Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript as a privileged document. Do not share content or reveal your identity (double-blind). Check metadata in Word/PDFs.
2. Unbiased Assessment: Evaluate work objectively based on merit rather than author identity or affiliation.
3. Review Timeline: Commit to the agreed timeline and promptly inform the office of any delays.
4. Constructive Feedback: Provide comprehensive comments on strengths/weaknesses and suggest specific improvements.
5. Clarity and Structure: Assess organization, coherence, and readability; suggest better flow where needed.
6. Methodology and Data: Evaluate research design, data collection, and statistical accuracy.
7. Verify References: Confirm the accuracy, relevance, and adherence to journal citation style.
8. Ethical Concerns: Alert the office to plagiarism, data fabrication, or other ethical lapses.
9. Clear Recommendation: Support your decision (Accept/Reject/Revise) with well-articulated comments.
10. Thoughtful Comments: Communicate respectfully and guide authors on addressing issues.
11. Final Recommendation: Articulate the final decision clearly in confidential comments to the editor.
12. Follow-Up: Respond promptly to any clarification requests from the editor or authors.

Review Report Content

Review reports should contain the following:

  • A brief summary: (one short paragraph) outlining the aim of the paper, its main contributions and strengths.
  • General concept comments:
    • Research Article: highlighting areas of weakness, testability of the hypothesis, methodological inaccuracies, etc.
    • Review Article: commenting on completeness, relevance of the topic, the gap in knowledge identified, etc.
  • Specific comments: referring to line numbers, tables, or figures that point out inaccuracies within the text or sentences that are unclear.

Rating Criteria

 
Novelty & Scope

Is the question original and well-defined? Does the work align with the journal's focus and provide advancement of knowledge?

Scientific Soundness

Is the study correctly designed? Are methods, tools, and reagents described with sufficient detail for reproduction?

Significance & Quality

Are conclusions justified by results? Is the data presented using the highest standards for analytical presentation?

Interest & Merit

Will the paper attract a wide readership? Is there a significant overall benefit to publishing this specific work?

English Language

Is the English language appropriate, clear, and understandable for an international scientific community?

Final Recommendation Categories

 
Accept in Present Form

The paper can be accepted without any further changes.

 
Accept after Minor Revisions

Acceptance after 15 days of revision based on reviewer comments.

 
Reconsider after Major Revisions

Dependent on a point-by-point response. Authors are given 25 days.

 
Reject

Serious flaws, lack of original contribution, or no offer of resubmission.

Review and Amendments

This policy will be periodically reviewed and may be amended to align with the evolving needs and standards of open-access publishing. Authors will be notified of any changes.