Reviewer Hub

Science transaction journals relies on the peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of individual articles and the journals that publish them. Peer review has been a formal part of scientific communication since the first scientific journals appeared more than 300 years ago. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is thought to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process under the editorship of Henry Oldenburg (1618- 1677).

What is peer review? Reviewers play a pivotal role in scholarly publishing. The peer review system exists to validate academic work, helps to improve the quality of published research, and increases networking possibilities within research communities. Despite criticisms, peer review is still the only widely accepted method for research validation and has continued successfully with relatively minor changes for some 350 years.

Reviewer Guidelines

Peer review is essential to maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of Science Transactions journals. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, confidential, timely, and constructive evaluations.

  • Review Model: Manuscripts undergo single-blind external peer review, with a minimum of two independent reviewers. Additional review may be sought when recommendations differ.
  • Evaluation Criteria: Reviewers should assess originality, significance, scope, methodological soundness, results and analysis, conclusions, ethical compliance, reporting quality, references, and data availability.
  • Recommendations: Reviewers may recommend Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, Reject, or Reject and Resubmit. The final decision rests with the handling editor.
  • Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must decline assignments involving conflicts such as recent co-authorship, shared affiliation, supervisory relationships, personal disputes, or financial interests.
  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts and review materials must remain confidential and must not be shared, discussed, or used for personal benefit before publication.
  • AI Tools: Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or confidential review materials to public or third-party AI tools, including generative AI platforms.
  • Timeliness: Reviews should normally be completed within 3 to 4 weeks. Reviewers should notify the editor promptly if additional time is required.
  • Constructive Reviews: Comments should be specific, evidence-based, respectful, and focused on improving the manuscript, without personal or discriminatory remarks.
  • Reviewer Recognition: Reviewers receive formal acknowledgement of completed reviews and may use it as evidence of their scholarly service.

Science Transactions is committed to a fair, transparent, confidential, and rigorous peer-review process.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools by Reviewers

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality, integrity, and independence of the peer-review process. Science Transactions follows COPE-aligned best practices regarding AI use.

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must not upload or share manuscripts, in whole or in part, with public or third-party AI tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, or Copilot.
  • Data Protection: AI tools must not be used to process manuscript content unless their data-retention and training policies have been verified and are consistent with confidentiality requirements.
  • Limited Use: AI may be used for general methodological guidance or for editing the reviewer's own text, provided no confidential manuscript content is included.
  • Reviewer Responsibility: The substantive assessment and recommendations must be the reviewer's own intellectual work. AI-generated peer-review reports are not permitted.
  • Disclosure: Any use of AI that involves manuscript content must be disclosed to the handling editor.
  • Policy Breaches: Violations may result in removal from the reviewer pool and appropriate action concerning the affected manuscript.
  • Editorial Use of AI: AI tools are not used by Science Transactions to make editorial decisions or generate substantive editorial judgments. Any administrative use must comply with confidentiality and data-protection requirements.

Science Transactions is committed to maintaining a confidential, ethical, independent, and rigorous peer-review process.