Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

International Invention of Scientific Journal (IISJ)

The International Invention of Scientific Journal (IISJ) relies on the expertise and integrity of reviewers to ensure the quality, credibility, and academic value of its publications. The journal follows a double-blind peer review process, where both author and reviewer identities are kept confidential.

1. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Conduct a thorough, objective, and unbiased evaluation of the manuscript
  • Maintain strict confidentiality of manuscript content and communications
  • Declare any conflicts of interest (financial, academic, or personal) before accepting the review
  • Provide constructive and clear feedback to improve the manuscript
  • Refrain from personal criticism and focus on scholarly merit

2. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and Significance
    • Does the work contribute new knowledge or insights?
  • Methodological Rigor
    • Are study design, data collection, and analysis appropriate and valid?
  • Clarity and Structure
    • Is the manuscript well-organized with clear tables, figures, and references?
  • Relevance to Scope
    • Does the manuscript align with the journal’s aims and scope?
  • Ethical Standards
    • Are ethical approvals, citations, and research practices properly followed?

3. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

  • Not use any unpublished information for personal or professional advantage
  • Report any suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical misconduct to the Editor-in-Chief
  • Follow ethical standards recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics

4. Timeliness

  • Reviews should be completed within the assigned timeframe (typically 2–3 weeks)
  • If unable to meet the deadline, reviewers should promptly inform the editorial office

5. Review Recommendations

Reviewers should provide a clear recommendation:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision / Resubmit
  • Reject

Detailed comments and suggestions should be provided to assist authors in improving their work.

6. Confidentiality and Anonymity

  • Reviewer identity remains confidential under the double-blind review system
  • Manuscripts and associated data must not be shared or discussed with third parties

Objective

These guidelines aim to ensure a fair, transparent, and high-quality peer review process, supporting the advancement of multidisciplinary scientific research and maintaining the integrity of scholarly publishing.