Peer reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the scientific quality, fairness, and integrity of the SCICONX Journal of Advanced Materials & Engineering (JAME). This guide provides detailed instructions for reviewers to ensure that every manuscript is evaluated constructively, ethically, and with utmost professionalism.

The journal greatly values the time, expertise, and commitment of reviewers and strives to provide a smooth and transparent review experience.

1. Role of Reviewers

Reviewers are entrusted with:

• Assessing the scientific merit and originality of submitted manuscripts
• Identifying strengths and weaknesses in methodology, analysis, and presentation
• Ensuring that the work falls within the journal’s scope
• Providing constructive, actionable feedback for authors
• Assisting editors in making informed decisions

Reviewers serve as ambassadors of scholarly excellence and uphold the credibility of the peer-review process.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

2.1 Confidentiality

All manuscripts are confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

• Share the manuscript with others
• Use any part of the manuscript for personal research
• Discuss its content with anyone outside the review process

2.2 Objectivity & Fairness

Review assessments must be:

• Impartial
• Based solely on scientific quality
• Free from personal, political, or competitive bias

2.3 Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline the review if they:

• Are from the same institution as the authors
• Have collaborated with any author in the last 3 years
• Have financial or personal interests that may affect objectivity
• Cannot provide an unbiased evaluation

2.4 Timeliness

Reviewers should submit their reviews within the stated deadline (usually 2–3 weeks). If additional time is needed, they must inform the editorial office promptly.

3. Accepting or Declining a Review Invitation

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript aligns with their expertise before accepting.
An invitation should be declined when:

• The topic is outside the reviewer’s domain
• A conflict of interest exists
• The reviewer lacks sufficient time
• The reviewer feels unable to provide a high-quality evaluation

If declining, reviewers are encouraged to suggest alternative qualified experts.

4. How to Evaluate a Manuscript

Reviewers should assess the manuscript in a structured manner. Key factors to evaluate include:

4.1 Originality & Significance

• Does the work contribute new knowledge or innovation?
• Does it advance theory, methodology, or application?
• Is the research question meaningful and relevant?

4.2 Technical Quality

• Are the methods appropriate and clearly described?
• Is the experimental design sound and reproducible?
• Are data analysis and interpretation accurate?

4.3 Presentation & Structure

• Is the manuscript logically organized?
• Are figures and tables clear and properly labeled?
• Is the writing coherent and scientifically accurate?

4.4 Ethical Standards

Reviewers should check for:

• Ethical approvals (human/animal studies, if applicable)
• Responsible data handling
• Proper citations and avoidance of plagiarism

4.5 Relevance to JAME

• Does the manuscript align with the journal’s aims & scope?
• Does it address topics within materials science and engineering fields?

5. Writing the Review Report

A high-quality review is objective, constructive, and detailed. Reviewers should structure their review as follows:

5.1 Summary of the Manuscript

Provide a brief overview highlighting:

• The purpose of the study
• Major findings
• Overall contribution

This demonstrates understanding and sets the context for comments.

5.2 Major Comments

These address essential issues such as:

• Methodological flaws
• Insufficient data
• Missing or incorrect analysis
• Inadequate interpretation
• Ethical concerns

Major comments should clearly explain what needs improvement and why.

5.3 Minor Comments

These refer to:

• Language corrections
• Typographical errors
• Clarifications of wording
• Minor formatting issues

5.4 Recommendation to Editor

Reviewers must choose one of the following:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

This recommendation is confidential and not shared directly with authors.

6. Reviewer Conduct & Ethical Expectations

6.1 Professional Tone

Comments must be respectful, clear, and constructive. Reviewers should avoid:

• Sarcastic or harsh language
• Personal criticism of the authors
• Unjustified or vague statements

6.2 Use of External Tools

Reviewers must not upload the manuscript to external AI tools, software, or platforms that could compromise confidentiality.

6.3 Identifying Misconduct

If reviewers suspect:

• Plagiarism
• Data manipulation
• Duplicate publication
• Unethical experiments

They must notify the editor immediately with evidence or specific concerns.

7. Reviewer Support & Recognition

JAME recognizes reviewer contributions through:

• Official reviewer certificates (upon request)
• Annual acknowledgment on the journal website
• Consideration for editorial board roles
• Opportunities to lead special issues

SCICONX Publishing values the essential role reviewers play in strengthening the research community.

8. Confidential Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may include private notes for the editor regarding:

• Ethical concerns
• Doubts about data integrity
• Conflicts requiring editorial attention
• Overall evaluation details unsuitable for authors

These comments remain strictly confidential.

9. Reviewing Revised Manuscripts

When reviewing a revised manuscript, reviewers should:

• Verify the authors’ point-by-point responses
• Check whether major concerns were properly addressed
• Confirm that revisions improve the manuscript quality
• Decide whether further revision is needed

Reviewers should focus on changes rather than re-evaluating the entire manuscript from scratch.

10. Declining Reviews After Acceptance

If a reviewer accepts the invitation but becomes unavailable due to unforeseen circumstances, they should immediately:

• Notify the handling editor
• Provide a clear reason
• Suggest alternate reviewers (if possible)

This maintains the smooth flow of the editorial pipeline.

11. Contact Information for Reviewer Assistance

For any difficulties, clarifications, or technical issues, reviewers may contact: editorialoffice@sciconx.org

Reviewers are indispensable to the success, reputation, and scientific credibility of the SCICONX Journal of Advanced Materials & Engineering. By adhering to these guidelines, reviewers help ensure that only high-quality, ethically conducted, and impactful research is published under SCICONX Publishing. The journal deeply appreciates the expertise, time, and dedication of its reviewers.