Methodological Scrutiny
Evaluate design assumptions, reproducibility details, and endpoint validity.
Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewer Guidelines for High Value Scientific Assessment
Deliver evidence based, actionable, and proportionate recommendations to support editorial decisions.
IJIR reviewers play a central role in protecting publication quality. Reviews should prioritize methodological validity, endpoint clarity, statistical interpretation, and ethical transparency while maintaining constructive tone and practical revision direction for authors.
Evidence
Focused
Constructive
Feedback
Timely
Delivery
Decision
Support
What Strong Reviews Contain
The most useful reports separate major scientific risks from minor presentation improvements.
Interpretation Control
Flag overstatement and ensure conclusions align with evidence limits.
Actionable Structure
Use ordered comments so authors can respond efficiently and completely.
Guidelines for Practical Reviewer Impact
Structured, proportionate reports improve both author revision quality and editorial confidence.
Scope Confirmation
Accept assignments only when manuscript topic aligns with your domain expertise. For this requirement, clear documentation reduces ambiguity in methodological interpretation and protects quality without adding unnecessary delay.
Major vs Minor Separation
Distinguish critical validity issues from optional presentation improvements. In this requirement, stronger reporting discipline prevents avoidable back and forth during technical clarification and helps keep reviewer feedback specific and actionable.
Evidence Referencing
Anchor recommendations to specific sections, data outputs, or methodological statements. When this requirement is specified precisely, communication quality improves across authors, reviewers, and editors, and accepted manuscripts reach publication with fewer corrections.
Timeline Respect
If delays arise, notify editors early so handling plans remain stable. Detailed treatment of this requirement gives reviewers a stable basis for evidence checks while preserving scientific transparency in the published record.
Ethics Attention
Report missing approvals, conflicts, or participant protection concerns explicitly. Operational clarity in this requirement supports fair comparison across competing submissions while reinforcing trust in editorial independence and rigor.
Decision Utility
Concise recommendation logic helps editors synthesize outcomes with less ambiguity. A robust description of this requirement strengthens confidence in claims, limits, and endpoint mapping and supports predictable workflow timing for authors and editors.
Additional Practical Guidance for Reviewer Guidelines
The points below add operational detail for review rigor and evidence-centered recommendation quality, helping authors, reviewers, and editors keep decisions consistent from first screening to final publication.
Method Transparency
Practical Method Transparency checkpoints for review rigor and evidence-centered recommendation quality support faster, better documented editorial reasoning. The benefit is measurable: fewer avoidable queries, better response quality in revision letters, and more reliable metadata at acceptance.
Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance within review rigor and evidence-centered recommendation quality gives editors a clearer basis for triage and reviewer assignment. This usually reduces clarification loops, improves decision confidence, and protects publication timelines without compromising scientific rigor.
A high quality review improves the manuscript and clarifies the decision path at the same time.
Reviewer Support
For scope or policy questions during review, contact [email protected].
