Peer-review

This guide and policy is intended to assist you in reviewing manuscripts submitted to ETFLIN journals. The steps that the reviewer must take are detailed so that the articles can be evaluated properly and efficiently. If you have further questions, contact our Editorial Office via halo@etflin.com.

Our principal in peer-review

We notice that the publication process takes a lengthy time owing to the peer-review step, which authors have expressed to various publishers. ETFLIN's editorial and management teams have worked hard to enhance quality and optimize the peer review time by implementing an online reviewing system. Ensuring the quality of peer review is of utmost importance to us. As such, we require that all reviewers submit their comments within 14 business days. However, we understand that certain circumstances may arise that require additional time. If this is the case, we ask that reviewers communicate with us promptly to discuss any potential delays. While we prioritize timeliness, we will always prioritize the thoroughness and thoughtfulness of the review process. So, we are willing to allow for a longer duration to ensure that the peer-review process remains robust and insightful.

All manuscripts submitted to ETFLIN journals go through double-blind peer review to ensure an equitable process. This is done to prevent communication between the reviewer(s) and the author(s). Reviewers are not permitted to contact the author in any manner, you should consider the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers before accepting and going through the peer-review process.

Selection of Reviewer

1. Affiliation: To ensure a fair and unbiased peer-review process, it is crucial to select reviewers from affiliations that are different from both the authors and each other. This practice helps maintain objectivity by minimizing potential conflicts of interest. By selecting reviewers from diverse affiliations, we can ensure a broader range of perspectives and expertise in evaluating the manuscript. Reviewers who are not affiliated with the authors and with each other can provide independent and impartial assessments free from any undue influence or bias. This approach promotes transparency and enhances the credibility of the peer-review process, ultimately contributing to the quality and integrity of the published work.
2. Expertise: The expertise of reviewers plays a crucial role in ensuring a rigorous and insightful evaluation of the manuscript. Reviewers should be selected based on their specialized knowledge and experience in the subject matter addressed in the manuscript. This expertise enables them to critically assess the scientific merits, methodology, and significance of the research presented. By having reviewers with relevant expertise, the evaluation process benefits from their deep understanding of the field, allowing for a comprehensive and informed review. Their expertise allows them to identify any potential gaps in the research, offer valuable suggestions for improvement, and provide a thoughtful analysis of the manuscript's contribution to the existing body of knowledge. Ultimately, the selection of reviewers with the necessary expertise contributes to maintaining the quality and integrity of the peer-review process, ensuring that the published work meets the highest standards of academic rigor.

In addition to possessing expertise in the subject matter, reviewers should meet certain criteria to ensure a high level of competence and credibility in their evaluations. The following criteria are recommended for reviewers:

1. Advanced Degree: Reviewers should hold a Ph.D., Doctorate, or MD degree in a field relevant to the manuscript's subject matter. This educational background demonstrates their depth of knowledge and understanding in their respective fields.
2. Publication Record: Reviewers should have a track record of publishing scholarly articles in reputable journals within their area of expertise. This criterion reflects their experience in conducting research, writing scientific papers, and understanding the publication process.
3. Field Experience: Reviewers should have practical experience and active involvement in the specific field covered by the manuscript. This could include academic positions, industry experience, or relevant research work. Their firsthand experience enhances their ability to provide insightful and informed evaluations.
4. Reputable Journals: Reviewers should have prior experience in publishing their work in high-impact, peer-reviewed journals. This criterion ensures that they are familiar with the rigorous standards and expectations of reputable publications, enabling them to evaluate the manuscript accordingly.

Peer Review Process

Peer Review Form

Peer review is conducted via an online reviewing system, with a link to the reviewer's email and a peer-review request. The peer-review form includes six basic points: writing/language, research background, methodology, results and discussion, conclusion, and references. Other assessments might be added by reviewer(s) on "Other comments" input. A slider input is provided to score the manuscript on each basic point. The score means the following:

• 0 = No changes need
• 1 = Can be improved
• 2 = Must be improved
• 3 = Extensive changes required

This form contains 6 comment boxes that are related to the manuscript quality and a general comment box. The following questions may help you correct the paper you are reviewing.

Language and style

• Does the paper adhere to the journal's formatting guidelines? This includes how figures, tables, equations, in-text citations (using the Vancouver style), and other data are presented within the paper.
• Is the grammar correct? Does the paper need proof-reading?

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

• Does the introduction provide adequate context about the research background? Has the author clearly explained why the topic is important to study?
• Are the research objectives clearly stated? Has the author explained what they aim to achieve through this research?
• Is the research problem or question presented appropriately? Is the problem being studied relevant and innovative?
• Is the scope of the research well-defined? Has the author explained what will be covered in the research and what will not be discussed?
• Does the author provide a comprehensive and relevant literature review related to the research topic? Has the author identified gaps in knowledge that this research will fill?
• Has the author explained the significance or benefits of this research for the field of study or practice? Can the results of this research make a meaningful contribution?

Is the research design appropriate and adequately described?

• Is the studied population and the sample used clearly described? Does the chosen sample represent a relevant population?
• Does the methodology section include grade, type/version, brand, company, and country information for each material and tool used?
• Are the variables studied clearly identified? Are the methods of measuring these variables valid and reliable?
• Is the data collection method used explained in detail? Is the method consistent with the research design and objectives?
• Is the data analysis technique used appropriate for the type of data collected? Does the analysis include necessary steps to answer the research questions?
• Are the steps taken to ensure data validity and reliability explained? Is there evidence supporting the validity and reliability of the data?
• Are research ethics aspects considered, such as obtaining ethical approval and ensuring protection of research subjects?
• Are all procedures reported in the results and discussion of the research also included in the methodology section?
• Is the research design used suitable for answering the research questions? Does the design align with the research objectives?
• If the study involves comparison between groups or conditions, are relevant statistical analyses used? Is there sufficient explanation about the analysis methods used?
• Are the limitations of the methodology acknowledged and explained? Are readers provided with enough information to evaluate the credibility of the research results?
• Is the methodology used explained in sufficient detail so that other researchers can replicate this study with similar results?

Are the results clearly presented and discussed?

• Are the research results disclosed clearly and comprehensively? Is the data presented in detail and aligned with the analysis methods used?
• Are the tables and figures used to support the research results relevant and informative? Do the use of tables and figures aid in reading and understanding the research findings?
• Are the visual elements provided in good quality? Are images clear, font sizes appropriate and legible, contrasts with the background, and so on?
• Is the interpretation of research results done carefully and logically? Can the authors explain the significance of the findings?
• Is the discussion of research results conducted in depth and structured? Can the authors connect the findings with relevant literature and explain their implications?
• Do the authors explain the contribution of their research to the field of science or practice? Do these results provide new understanding or support existing theories?

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

• Does the conclusion provide a clear and concise summary of the main findings of the research?
• Does the conclusion relate the research findings to the research objectives outlined in the introduction?
• Does the conclusion present practical and/or theoretical implications of the research findings? Are these implications explained clearly?
• Is the conclusion consistent with the results previously revealed in the Results and Discussion section?
• Does the conclusion explain the research's contribution to the field of science or practice? Does it highlight the novelty or importance of the research findings?
• Does the conclusion acknowledge the limitations of the research and provide recommendations for further research or development?
• Is the conclusion in line with what is promised by the title and abstract of the article?
• Is the conclusion presented clearly and easily understandable? Can readers grasp the main message of the conclusion?

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

• Are the referenced sources credible and reliable in their respective fields?
• Is the information provided for each reference complete and in accordance with the referencing rules used?
• Are the references mentioned relevant to the research topic and supportive of the arguments or findings presented in the article?
• Are the references relatively new and supportive of the novelty of the conducted research?
• Are references cited correctly within the article text and in accordance with the applicable rules?
• Is the number of references used sufficient to support the arguments or findings presented in the article?

Other comments

This section can contain any suggestions needed to improve the quality of the paper you are reviewing.

Reviewer Recognition

We are aware that the reviewers worked hard to help improve the paper's quality. As a result, below are some of the benefits of becoming an ETFLIN reviewer:

1. Get a certificate of recognition as a reviewer
2. Your name appears in the accepted article that you reviewed
3. You will be given priority consideration for submission to ETFLIN Journals

Authoring Editorial Article

Articles authored by editors can be published through an objective and transparent process. These articles must undergo review by independent reviewers and, if possible, be managed by a guest editor.

The process undergone by these articles is the same as that for regular articles, with minimal involvement from the internal editorial team (except for managing and copy-editing). The articles still undergo a double-blind peer-review process, initially labeled not as 'Editorial' articles to reduce the risk of conflicts of interest and to maintain the same review standards as other articles.

These types of articles can only be authored by Editor-in-Chief, Advisory Editor, and Sectional Editor, where the content must present viewpoints or analyses related to the journal's scope and have scientific impact. Such articles should not be used solely for notifications or advertisements, including for personal or specific institutional interests.

Prohibited Activities

Personal reference suggestion

Reviewers are strongly advised against making recommendations to authors to include personal references that do not substantially enhance the article's overall content and quality. Authors maintain the prerogative to decline such suggestions, and it is incumbent upon the editor to effectively communicate this to the author. The peer-review process should prioritize the relevance and scholarly significance of references to ensure the integrity and credibility of the article.

Contacting author

It is imperative that reviewers refrain from attempting to contact authors intentionally or unintentionally. The peer-review process relies on a degree of impartiality and confidentiality to ensure fairness and objectivity. Unsolicited contact with authors can potentially compromise the anonymity and integrity of the review process. Reviewers should instead direct their feedback and queries through the appropriate editorial channels or peer review form, respecting the established procedures for maintaining a constructive and unbiased review process.

Manipulating review

Reviewers are strictly prohibited from manipulating their review outcomes for personal or institutional interests, including pursuing competitive objectives. Maintaining the integrity of the peer-review process is paramount to ensuring fairness and objectivity in scholarly publishing, and any attempt to compromise this fundamental principle is considered a breach of ethical conduct.

Disclosing in review materials

Reviewers are obligated to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts they review and refrain from using or disclosing their content prior to the manuscript's publication or obtaining written permission from the author. This commitment to confidentiality safeguards the integrity of the peer-review process, ensuring that unpublished research remains secure until it is ready for dissemination or until explicit consent is granted by the author.

Discriminative and unethical comments

Reviewers are expected to provide professional and constructive feedback, refraining from using language or perspectives that may be discriminatory or unethical towards the authors. Maintaining a respectful and unbiased tone in their comments is essential to upholding the ethical standards of peer review and fostering a supportive and inclusive scholarly environment. See our policy related to harassment.