Reviewer

Reviewers Guide

Peer Review and Editorial Procedure

The peer review process begins when an author submits their manuscript via the journal’s online system, including all required materials. Initially, the Managing Editor conducts a technical pre-check to ensure adherence to guidelines and identify any major ethical issues. Once cleared, a qualified academic editor is assigned to oversee the process. The academic editor performs an editorial pre-check to evaluate the manuscript’s suitability and quality, and recommends potential peer reviewers. They then decide whether to proceed with peer review, request revisions, or reject the manuscript. If the manuscript advances, the Editorial Office organizes the review by independent experts, generally seeking at least two reviewers. These experts assess the manuscript’s scientific merit and provide detailed feedback. Authors receive this feedback and are expected to make revisions, addressing each point thoroughly and submitting a response letter.

If significant changes are made, a second round of peer review may occur to ensure all concerns are resolved. Following this, the academic editor makes the final decision regarding publication, which may involve acceptance, further revisions, or rejection. Once accepted, the manuscript undergoes internal copy editing for language and formatting. Finally, the article is published in the journal, appearing in both online and print formats. This rigorous peer review process ensures that only high-quality research contributes to the scientific community.

Reviewers’ Profile and Responsibilities

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. Each reviewer is expected to evaluate manuscripts in a timely, transparent, and ethical manner, adhering to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

A Review a Manuscript Reviewers should meet the following criteria:

• The reviewer must possess expertise in the relevant field and should have authored at least five articles as a corresponding author.
• There should be no conflicts of interest with the manuscript’s authors.
• The reviewer must not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors.
• Collaboration with the authors within the last three years is not permitted.
• A PhD or MD is required, particularly for medical journals.
• The reviewer should have substantial experience and a strong publication record in the subject area (e.g., indexed in Scopus or ORCID).
• They must be well-established scholars in the relevant discipline.
• An official and recognized academic affiliation is mandatory.

Cognivoxi is committed to ensuring rigorous peer review, which is fundamental for our reviewers.

Reviewers who agree to review a manuscript are expected to:

• Possess the necessary expertise to assess the manuscript’s scientific quality.
• Provide detailed review reports and be responsive throughout the review process.
• Maintain professional and ethical standards.
• Conduct a thorough evaluation of the manuscript’s originality, significance, and methodology.
• Offer constructive feedback that highlights both strengths and weaknesses.
• Respect the confidentiality of the review process and refrain from discussing the manuscript with unauthorized individuals.
• Complete their reviews within the agreed timeframe and communicate any delays to the editor.

By fulfilling these criteria and responsibilities, reviewers contribute significantly to the scholarly publishing process, ensuring high standards of academic rigor.

Reviewers’ Benefits

Peer review is often an invisible and unrewarded task, even though it is crucial. We aim to recognize the efforts of all our reviewers.

Reviewing for Cognivoxi journals brings the following benefits:

• Reviewers for each manuscript reviewed may receive a voucher entitling them to a discount on the APC for any future submission to any Cognivoxi journal. These vouchers are linked to the reviewer’s email address and can be applied during online submission or at any time prior to manuscript acceptance. Please note that vouchers cannot be redeemed after an invoice is issued, which occurs upon acceptance; however, if the manuscript is rejected, the voucher can still be used for a subsequent submission. Reviewer vouchers may be combined with IOAP and affiliated society discounts.
• Reviewer voucher codes can be utilized for professional English editing services offered through Author Services.
• Each reviewer receives a personalized certificate acknowledging their contributions to the journal.
• Reviewers are eligible for the “Outstanding Reviewer Awards,” which recognize exceptional contributions to the peer review process.
• Reviewers who contributed alongside more than 50 peers in the previous year will be included in the journal’s annual acknowledgment of reviewers.
• Exceptional reviewers may be considered for promotion to Reviewer Board Members, subject to approval by the Editor-in-Chief.
• Reviewers have the option to create a profile on the Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service (formerly Publons), allowing for their review activities to be automatically added for participating journals. These profiles can also be integrated with ORCID.
• Through these initiatives, Cognivoxi aims to foster a collaborative and rewarding environment for its reviewers, enhancing the overall quality and integrity of the peer review process.

Reviewer Board
The Reviewer Board (RB) consists of experienced researchers who play a vital role in supporting journals by conducting high-quality, transparent reviews of submitted manuscripts within their field of expertise. Membership lasts for one year, after which it can be renewed or terminated. RB members have the same responsibilities and benefits as regular reviewers, with additional duties:

• RB members must review at least 6 manuscripts annually. If unable to review, they should suggest alternative reviewers who meet the criteria from Section 2.
• RB members are entitled to receive an RB certificate.
• RB members are recognized on the journal’s website.
• Active RB members may be promoted to the Topical Advisory Panel (subject to Editor-in-Chief approval).

Volunteer Reviewers

Cognivoxi journals are currently inviting volunteers to review manuscripts. Both members of the Reviewer Board and Volunteer Reviewers are welcome to contribute to the peer review process across any of Cognivoxi’s journals.

To participate, applicants must fulfill the eligibility criteria detailed in Section 2, “Reviewers’ Profile and Responsibilities.

Interested members should submit an application. The editorial office will be informed, and our internal staff will evaluate your application to ensure that your background aligns with the journal’s scope and to identify any potential ethical concerns. If approved, your application will be accepted.

Active volunteer reviewers may be considered for promotion to Reviewer Board Members, pending approval from the Editor-in-Chief. Active Volunteer Reviewers may be promoted to Reviewer Board Members (subject to Editor-in-Chief approval).

General Guidelines for Cognivoxi Reviewer Recruiting Program

To apply to review a manuscript, Reviewer Board members and Volunteer Reviewers can visit the “Recruiting Reviewers” menu in our Submission System (https://www.scholarscentral.org/editorial-tracking/index.php). You will find this menu under “Reviewers Menu” on the left-hand side. Here, you can see available manuscripts to apply for, searchable by Journal and keyword. If you find an interesting manuscript, click “Apply.” The Editorial Office will be notified, and our internal staff will review your research background and any potential conflicts of interest. If you pass, your application will be approved.

Note: You can only view and apply for manuscripts in journals where you are a Reviewer Board member or Volunteer Reviewer.

General Guidelines for Reviewers

Invitation to Review

If a Manuscript is received to Cognivoxi journals then it will be reviewed by at least two experts, who may be volunteer reviewers, Reviewer Board members, or reviewers suggested by the academic editor. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and recommend whether it should be accepted, revised, or rejected.

Reviewers are encouraged to:

• Accept or decline invitations promptly (based on the manuscript’s title and abstract).
• Suggest alternative reviewers if they must decline.
• Request a deadline extension as soon as possible if additional time is required to provide a comprehensive review.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest and contact the Editorial Office if unsure about a conflict. Possible conflicts include:

• The reviewer works at the same institution as one of the authors.
• The reviewer is a co-author, collaborator, joint grant holder, or has any academic relationship with any of the authors in the last three years.
• The reviewer has a personal relationship or rivalry with any of the authors.
• The reviewer may gain or lose financially from the publication of the paper.
• The reviewer has any other non-financial conflict (political, personal, religious, ideological, commercial, etc.).

Reviewers should disclose conflicts of interest to avoid bias.

Declaration of Confidentiality

Cognivoxi journals use single or double-blind peer review. Reviewers should keep manuscript content confidential until publication. Reviewers should also avoid revealing their identity to authors through comments or metadata. If a reviewer would like a colleague to complete the review, the substitute must meet the criteria from Section 2.

Cognivoxi offers the option for authors to publish review reports alongside their article (Open Peer Review) and for reviewers to sign their reports, if permitted. In all other cases, review reports are confidential and can only be disclosed with the reviewer’s explicit permission.

Review Reports

Review reports must be written in English. Reviewers should:

• Read the entire manuscript and supplementary materials carefully, paying close attention to figures, tables, data, and methods.
• Critically analyze the article as whole and specific sections.
• Provide detailed comments that help the authors understand and address the issues raised.

Rating the Manuscript

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript’s originality, relevance, scientific soundness, and potential interest to readers. They should also assess the manuscript’s adherence to ethical standards, the quality of presentation, and the correctness of data and analyses.

Overall Recommendation

Reviewers should provide a recommendation for the next processing stage, such as:

• Accept in Present Form: No further changes required.
• Accept after Minor Revisions: Authors should make revisions within five days.
• Reconsider after Major Revisions: A decision depends on revisions.
• Reject: The article has serious flaws.

Guidelines for Registered Reports

The review process for Registered Reports is divided into two stages: Stage 1 reviews study proposal, while Stage 2 reviews the final results. Reviewers evaluate the methodology in Stage 1 and the data in Stage 2 to ensure the conclusions are justified.

ORCID Integration

Reviewers can deposit their review activities into their ORCID profile by linking their account with ORCID. For details on this process, see our submission system page.