Reviewer Guidelines

A step-by-step guide to reviewing a manuscript:

What is the purpose of a review?

Before saying “yes”

Writing a review: a step-by-step guide

Questions to consider

Provide detailed comments

The process of assessing the manuscript.

Can you suggest something?

Sample comments

A note about revisions

Review Timing

Reporting Guidelines

What is the purpose of a review?

Our rigorous review process involves sending manuscripts to a minimum of three reviewers, selected for their expertise in the subject matter.

Before saying “yes”

To review for KSV Journal of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, register on their website and submit your review using a structured form. If you have any conflicts of interest or cannot meet the deadline, notify the editor.

Writing a review: a step-by-step guide

You’ve received your invite and said yes, here’s what to do next.

  1. Research the journal
    • Visit the journal homepage to get a sense of the journal’s published content and house style. This will help you in deciding whether the paper being reviewed is suitable for the journal or not.
    • Refer to the Instructions for Authors to check if the paper meets the submission criteria of the journal (e.g. length, scope, and presentation).
  2. Write your report
    • Write your views about the manuscript online on the reviewer’s panel.

Questions to consider

The main factors you should provide advice on as a reviewer are the originality, presentation, relevance, and significance of the manuscript’s subject matter to the readership of the journal.

Questions to have in mind when reading the manuscript (in no particular order):

When reviewing a submission, it is imperative that you thoroughly assess its originality and relevance to the scope of the journal. Determine if it will captivate readers and contribute to further research. Evaluate if it significantly builds upon the author's previous work and assess its potential impact. The paper must be complete with accurate methodology and analysis, relevant data, citations, and references. If necessary, consider submitting it elsewhere or shortening it. Always use Standard English to ensure reader comprehension.

Provide detailed comments

When providing feedback to writers, it is important to address any unclear points and offer suggestions for improving the clarity, conciseness, and overall quality of their work. If the topic of the paper is too lengthy, it is beneficial to identify specific areas where reduction is required. Although the reviewer is not accountable for English editing, it is helpful to correct any technical terminology that may be confusing. Referees should acknowledge the author's viewpoints, even if they disagree, as long as they are consistent with the available evidence. Additionally, it is crucial to balance constructive criticism with positive feedback.

Being critical whilst remaining sensitive to the author isn’t always easy and comments should be carefully constructed so that the author fully understands what actions they need to take to improve their paper. For example, generalized or vague statements should be avoided along with any negative comments which aren’t relevant or constructive.

The process of assessing the manuscript.

Reviewers are asked to provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript:

  • Key Findings: Kindly provide a thorough summary of the key features of the work, making sure that no important details are omitted or modified. It is crucial to maintain the same level of formality as the original text.
  • Originality and significance: Could you kindly include relevant references if the conclusions are not original? Also, from a subjective standpoint, do you believe that the results presented would be of immediate interest to individuals in your field and possibly across various disciplines?
  • Methodology: Can you provide feedback on the approach's validity, data quality, and presentation quality? Please keep in mind that our reviewers are expected to review all data, including any supplementary information. Are the data and methodology reporting sufficiently detailed and transparent to reproduce the results?
  • Comments on statistics: In the figure legends, make sure to define all error bars and let me know if any are missing. Also, please provide a comment in your report regarding the suitability of the statistical tests used and the precision of the error bars and probability values described.
  • Conclusions: Do you find that the conclusions and data interpretation are robust, valid, and reliable?
  • Suggested improvements: Can you provide a list of any additional experiments or data that might improve the revision work?
  • References: Does this manuscript reference previous literature appropriately? If not, what references should be included or excluded?

Can you suggest something?

Once you’ve read the paper and have assessed its quality, you need to make a recommendation to the editor regarding publication. The specific decision types used by a journal will vary but the key decisions are:

  • Accept – if the paper is suitable for publication in its current form.
  • Minor revision – if the paper will be ready for publication after light revisions. Please list the revisions you would recommend the author makes.
  • Major revision – if the paper would benefit from substantial changes such as expanded data analysis, widening of the literature review, or rewriting sections of the text.
  • Reject – if the paper is not suitable for publication in this journal or if the revisions that would need to be undertaken are too fundamental for the submission to continue being considered in its current form.

At our publication, we value and consider critiques from reviewers, particularly technical criticisms. If one reviewer opposes publication, we consult with other reviewers to determine if their critique is overly critical. We may also seek advice from additional reviewers to address specific technical points. Our editorial board takes these steps seriously to ensure fairness and accuracy in our publications.

Sample comments

Please note that these are just examples of how you might provide feedback on an author’s work. Your review should, of course, always be tailored to the paper in question and the specific requirements of the journal and the editor.

■ Positive comments

  • The manuscript is well-written in an engaging and lively style.
  • The level is appropriate to our readership.
  • The subject is very important. It is currently something of a “hot topic,” and it is one to which the author(s) have made significant contributions.
  • This manuscript ticks all the boxes we normally have in mind for an X paper, and I have no hesitation in recommending that it be accepted for publication after a few typos and other minor details have been attended to.
  • Given the complexity involved, the author has produced several positive and welcome outcomes including the literature review which offers a useful overview of current research and policy, and the resulting bibliography which provides a very useful resource for current practitioners.
  • This is a well-written article that does identify an important gap.

■ When constructive criticism is required

  • In the “Discussion” section I would have wished to see more information on …
  • Overall I do not think that this article contains enough robust data to evidence the statement made on page X, lines Y–Z.
  • I would strongly advise the author(s) of this paper to rewrite their introduction, analysis, and discussion to produce a more contextualized introduction to…
  • There is an interesting finding in this research about... However, there is insufficient discussion of exactly what this finding means and what its implications are.
  • This discussion could be enlarged to explain …
  • The authors could strengthen the paper by …
  • The paper would be significantly improved with the addition of more details about …
  • The abstract is very lengthy and goes into detailed accounts that are best suited for the article’s main discussion sections. As such, it is suggested the section is reduced in size and that only the most important elements remain.
  • To make this paper publishable the author needs to respond to the following substantive points …

■ When linguistic alterations are required

  • Consider hiring a professional editor to improve the paper's quality by addressing linguistic errors such as verb agreement.
  • Stylistic changes improve effectiveness and create a stronger case for the reader.
  • There are a few sentences that require rephrasing for clarity.

A note about revisions

When authors receive reviewer comments on their article, they are requested to revise it accordingly and provide a list of changes and comments. The modified version is typically sent back to the same reviewer, if possible, and they are asked to confirm if the revisions have been implemented satisfactorily.

Review Timing

The time it takes to get an editorial decision on manuscripts from external reviewers varies from 15 to 30 days after submission. Final acceptance from the editorial team can take anywhere from 30 to 60 days after publication.

Reporting Guidelines

At KSV Journal of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, authors are not required to use reporting guidelines. Nevertheless, we suggest that reviewers utilize appropriate reporting guidelines to assist in evaluating the submission. We especially encourage the use of:

Guideline related to Journal Policies, Formatting, References, etc.

  • For correction of Literature: COPE Retraction Guidelines
  • For citation and References: Vancouver Style Guideline
  • Correction, Retractions, Republication, and errors are handled as per standards prescribed by ICMJE
  • Publication ethics and malpractice statement from guidelines provided by Committee on publication ethics (COPE). (http://publicationethics.org)