The Journal of Research and Development (JRD) depends on the expertise and thoughtful evaluation of peer reviewers to ensure the integrity, quality, and scientific merit of the articles we publish. As a reviewer, your feedback contributes directly to advancing scholarly research and development across disciplines.

This guide outlines the responsibilities, expectations, and procedures for reviewers engaged with JRD.

1. Role of a Reviewer

Reviewers play a critical role by:

• Evaluating the originality, methodology, validity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts
• Offering constructive and unbiased feedback to help authors improve their work
• Assisting editors in making well-informed publication decisions

2. Confidentiality and Ethics

• All manuscript content, associated data, and peer reviews must be treated as confidential.
• Reviewers must not share, distribute, or use any manuscript materials for personal or professional gain.
• If you recognize a conflict of interest or are unable to provide an objective review, please decline the invitation immediately.

3. Review Process Overview

JRD follows a double-blind peer review system:

• The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed to ensure impartiality.
• Reviewers typically have 14–21 days to complete a review after accepting the invitation.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Please assess the manuscript based on the following aspects:

• Originality and Novelty: Does the research present new ideas, approaches, or findings?
• Scientific Rigor: Are the methods sound and appropriately applied?
• Clarity and Structure: Is the manuscript well-organized, clearly written, and easy to follow?
• Significance and Relevance: Does the research contribute meaningfully to its field or solve a real-world problem?
• Ethical Standards: Are ethical approvals, conflicts of interest, and data transparency adequately addressed?

5. Review Format

Your review should include:

• Confidential Comments to the Editor (optional): Concerns or recommendations not intended for the author.
• Comments to the Author: Constructive, respectful, and specific feedback covering:
  • Major strengths and weaknesses
  • Suggestions for improvement
  • Questions for clarification, if any
  • Recommendations for additional literature, experiments, or analysis

Please avoid personal, harsh, or vague remarks. Your review should guide the author toward enhancing the manuscript.

6. Recommendation Categories

You will be asked to recommend one of the following:

• Accept as is
• Minor revisions
• Major revisions
• Reject

The final decision will be made by the editor based on your recommendation and other reviews.

7. Reviewer Recognition

To acknowledge your valuable contribution, JRD offers:

• Reviewer certificates upon request
• Recognition on the annual list of active reviewers
• Opportunities to join the editorial board or guest-edit special issues based on performance

8. Declining a Review Invitation

If you're unable to accept a review invitation:

• Kindly decline as early as possible
• Feel free to suggest alternative qualified reviewers

For any questions or support related to the review process, please contact us at editor.jrd@sciconxjournals.com

Your expertise empowers scientific progress. Thank you for supporting the Journal of Research and Development.