| For Reviewers |  > For Authors and Reviewers > For Reviewers |
Enacted on July 16, 2023
This document provides guidelines for reviewers who voluntarily participate in the peer-review process of the journal. All contents of the journal, including commissioned manuscripts, are subject to peer review.
Double blind peer review
Algae adopts a double-blind review process, meaning that reviewers and authors cannot identify each other's information.
Role of reviewers
The role of a peer reviewer is to advise editors on individual manuscripts, recommending whether they should be revised, accepted, or rejected. Reviewers should provide objective judgments and lucidly described comments. Scientific soundness is the most important value of the journal, so logic and statistical analysis should be meticulously considered. Using reporting guidelines is recommended for the review process. Reviewers should have no conflicts of interest and should point out relevant published work that has not yet been cited. Reviewed articles are managed confidentially, and the editorial office is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript based on the reviewers' recommendation.
How to become a reviewer
Reviewers are usually invited by editorial members or recommended by authors.
However, anyone who wishes to work voluntarily as a reviewer can contact the EIC.
Authors are permitted to recommend reviewers from the same institution. We encourage reviewers not to decline the invitation to review solely because they are acquainted with the authors or from the same institution. Instead, we welcome reviewers who are familiar with the authors and eager to provide constructive feedback.
If review comments cannot be submitted within the four-week review period, please decline the review invitation or request an extension of the review period.
How to write review comments
We are experiencing issues with the online system meant for peer review. Typically, the EIC requests a review directly by attaching the manuscript to an email. There is no specified format for the reviewer's letter of recommendation. Reviewers may respond to the EIC in their preferred style, but they should be sure to address the following points:
- ● Commenting on the style and format is not necessary; instead, please focus on evaluating the scientific validity and logical interpretation of the results presented.
- ● Comment to authors: Please provide a summary of the entire manuscript in one sentence. Additionally, provide specific comments for each section of the manuscript in the order they appear. It would be helpful to include page numbers to easily identify the relevant sections. Please refrain from providing a recommendation on the acceptance of the manuscript. Instead, focus on how the peer review opinion can improve the quality of the manuscript or suggest areas for further research by the author.
- ● Comment to editor: Please add both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Also, include the reviewer's recommendation on acceptance, as well as any special opinions addressed to the editor.
Ethical guideline for reviewers
All information obtained during the review process is confidential. Please inform the editor of any conflicts of interest, as follows:
- ● A reviewer may be a competitor.
- ● A reviewer may have an antipathy towards the author(s).
- ● A reviewer may profit financially from the work.
If any of the above conflicts of interest exist, the reviewer should decline to review the document. If the reviewer still wishes to review, they should specifically disclose their conflicts of interest. However, a history of previous collaboration with the authors or any intimate relationship with the authors does not necessarily prohibit the review.
The reviewer should not use any material or data originating from the manuscript during the review process. However, it is possible to use open data from the manuscript after it has been published.
Post-review work by the editorial office
Opinions and decisions provided in reviews may be analyzed by the editorial office without identifying the reviewer.
Certificate of review
If a certificate of review is required, please contact the EIC. The reviewers may be listed in the editorial for acknowledgement.
|
