FOR REVIEWERS

PEER REVIEW RESOURCES

For Reviewers

 

Guidance for reviewers participating in the scholarly peer-review process of journals published by Three E Science Institute.

ROLE OF PEER REVIEW

Supporting the Integrity of Scholarly Communication

Peer review is a central component of scholarly publishing. Reviewers provide independent academic assessment of submitted manuscripts and assist editors in evaluating their scientific quality, methodological rigor, relevance, clarity, originality, and contribution to the field.

Reviewers should conduct evaluations objectively, constructively, confidentially, and within the agreed review period. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the journal's editorial team.

CORE PRINCIPLES

Principles of Responsible Peer Review

Objectivity
Evaluate scholarly content without personal bias.
Confidentiality
Protect unpublished manuscripts and review material.
Constructiveness
Provide specific recommendations that improve the work.
Independence
Disclose circumstances that may impair impartiality.
Timeliness
Complete reviews within the agreed period.
STEP 01

Before Accepting a Review Invitation

A review invitation should be accepted only when the reviewer possesses sufficient subject expertise, can provide an independent evaluation, and can complete the assessment within the requested period.

✓ Subject Expertise
Confirm that the manuscript falls sufficiently within the reviewer's field of expertise.
 ✓ Availability
Ensure that sufficient time is available to complete a careful review.
✓ Independence
Determine whether professional, financial, institutional, or personal relationships could affect impartiality.
 ✓ Confidentiality
Accept the obligation to treat the manuscript and associated information confidentially.
If the review cannot be completed within the requested period, the invitation should be declined or the editorial office should be contacted promptly.
STEP 02

Peer Review Process

01
Invitation
02
Acceptance
03
Assessment
04
Review Report
05
Recommendation
06
Editorial Decision
STEP 03

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Relevance & Scope Determine whether the manuscript is relevant to the journal's aims, scope, and readership.
Originality Assess whether the work provides a meaningful scholarly contribution or new interpretation.
Research Question Evaluate whether objectives, research questions, or hypotheses are clearly stated and justified.
Literature Assess whether relevant literature is used appropriately to establish the study context.
Methodology Evaluate the appropriateness, transparency, reproducibility, and limitations of the methods.
Results Determine whether results are presented accurately, clearly, and consistently with the reported methods.
Discussion Assess whether interpretations are supported by evidence and appropriately situated in prior research.
Conclusion Determine whether conclusions are proportionate to the evidence and avoid unsupported generalization.
Ethics Identify potential ethical, consent, integrity, disclosure, or research-governance concerns.
Presentation Assess logical structure, clarity, tables, figures, terminology, and overall readability.
STEP 04

Preparing a Constructive Review Report

A useful review report should distinguish major scientific concerns from minor editorial issues. Comments should be clear, specific, evidence-based, and sufficiently detailed to help authors understand what should be improved.

01
Summary
Briefly summarize the purpose and overall contribution of the manuscript.
02
Major Comments
Identify substantive issues affecting validity, interpretation, or scholarly contribution.
03
Minor Comments
Identify presentation, clarity, terminology, referencing, or technical issues.
04
Recommendation
Provide an overall recommendation consistent with the issues identified in the review.
PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION

Tone and Language of the Review

Reviewer comments should address the manuscript rather than the personal characteristics of its authors. Reviews should avoid insulting, discriminatory, dismissive, hostile, or unnecessarily subjective language. Criticism should be supported by clear scholarly reasoning whenever possible.

EDITORIAL RECOMMENDATION

Reviewer Recommendation

Recommendation categories may vary by journal and editorial workflow. Common recommendation categories include:

Accept
Suitable for publication without substantive revision.
Minor Revision
Limited revisions are required before publication.
Major Revision
Substantive issues require significant revision.
Reject
Fundamental concerns prevent publication in its current form.
The reviewer's recommendation is advisory. The editor remains responsible for the final editorial decision and may consider multiple reviewer reports, editorial assessment, journal policy, and other relevant scholarly factors.
REVIEWER ETHICS

Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers should not disclose the manuscript, review invitation, unpublished data, figures, methods, findings, or review correspondence to unauthorized individuals.

Unpublished information obtained through peer review should not be used for personal research, commercial purposes, competitive advantage, or any other purpose unrelated to the review.

INDEPENDENCE

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should disclose circumstances that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, the independence of their evaluation. Relevant conflicts may be financial, professional, institutional, collaborative, competitive, or personal.

When uncertain whether a relationship constitutes a conflict, the reviewer should disclose it to the editor before proceeding with the review.
CITATION INTEGRITY

Citation Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend relevant literature when it materially improves the scholarly context or interpretation of the manuscript. Citation recommendations should be academically justified. Reviewers should not pressure authors to cite unnecessary publications for the purpose of increasing citations to themselves, particular authors, journals, institutions, or publishers.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

AI Tools & Peer Review

Reviewers remain personally responsible for the content, accuracy, reasoning, and recommendation contained in their review. Artificial intelligence systems cannot serve as reviewers and cannot assume responsibility for peer-review decisions.

Confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, review materials, or identifiable manuscript content should not be uploaded to external generative AI systems or other third-party tools when doing so could compromise confidentiality, data protection, intellectual property, or editorial integrity.

RESEARCH INTEGRITY

Potential Ethical or Integrity Concerns

If potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, unethical research practice, undisclosed conflicts, citation manipulation, or other serious concerns are identified, reviewers should report them confidentially to the editor. Reviewers should not independently contact or investigate the authors.

ETHICAL EXPECTATIONS

Reviewer Code of Conduct

Do
Provide objective, evidence-based, constructive, respectful, confidential, and timely reviews.
Disclose
Report conflicts of interest, limitations of expertise, and significant ethical concerns.
Do Not
Misuse confidential information, manipulate citations, make personal attacks, or allow non-scholarly interests to influence evaluation.
Journal-Specific Information
THREE E SCIENCE INSTITUTE JOURNAL

International Journal of Environment, Engineering and Education

E-ISSN: 2656-8039

Reviewers should consult the journal platform for current peer-review procedures, journal scope, editorial policies, and manuscript-specific review instructions.

VISIT JOURNAL PEER REVIEW PROCESS
FINAL CHECK

Reviewer Submission Checklist

✓ Review addresses the manuscript's scientific and scholarly content. ✓ Major and minor issues are clearly distinguished.
✓ Comments are specific, constructive, and professionally written. ✓ Any conflict of interest has been disclosed.
✓ Confidential manuscript information has been protected. ✓ Recommendation is consistent with the review comments.
Editorial Responsibility
Peer reviewers provide expert advice to editors. Acceptance, revision, rejection, and other editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the journal's authorized editorial team.
PEER REVIEW SUPPORT

Reviewer Assistance

Reviewers who require clarification regarding a manuscript, review deadline, conflict of interest, technical problem, or ethical concern should contact the relevant journal editorial office before submitting the review.

VISIT JOURNAL CONTACT THE INSTITUTE POLICIES & ETHICS