Guidelines for Reviewers

Basic Principles

The peer review process aims to improve the quality of the reviewed manuscripts and the materials to be published. A well-conducted peer review takes time, but it is essential to ensure the quality of the scientific journal. D'Stijl appreciates the time and effort you dedicate to this review process.

D'Stijl follows the Publication Ethics Code and Best Practice Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (http://publicationethics.org). We strive to ensure that the review process is fair, objective, and timely. Decisions to accept or reject manuscripts are based on their importance, originality, clarity, validity of the study, and relevance to the journal's scope.

We use various sources to find potential reviewers, including the editorial board, personal knowledge, author recommendations, and bibliographic databases. Reviewer evaluations play a crucial role in determining whether a manuscript can be accepted for publication.

D'Stijl follows a double-blind peer review system, meaning the authors’ identities are hidden from the reviewers, and the reviewers’ identities are hidden from the authors. Reviewers may choose to sign their reviews if they wish.

General Notes

  • Reviews should be conducted objectively and fairly. Personal criticism of the author is not allowed. If the manuscript has weaknesses, focus your critique on the scientific content, not the author.
  • Avoid conflicts of interest. If you have any collaboration, competition, or other connections with the author, institution, or related company, you should decline the review assignment.
  • If you have any connection with the author or institution that might be perceived as a conflict of interest but is not actually one, please disclose this in confidential comments to the editor. If unsure, consult the editor before accepting the review task.
  • Maintain manuscript confidentiality. Do not discuss unpublished manuscripts with others or use the information within them for personal gain. If you believe a colleague is better suited to review the manuscript, do not pass it to them without the editor’s permission.
  • If you choose to remain anonymous, avoid comments that may reveal your identity.

Comments for the Editor

Comments to the editor will only be received by the Handling Editor and Editor-in-Chief. In this section, please disclose any conflicts of interest (if any). Constructive comments and criticisms about the manuscript should be included in Comments for the Authors.

Comments for the Authors

Your comments will be shared with the Handling Editor, Editor-in-Chief, as well as the authors and other anonymous reviewers after the editor's decision has been made.

  • Comments should be constructive and aim to improve the quality of the manuscript.
  • Think of yourself as a mentor to the authors. Provide detailed and complete feedback. Clearly express your opinion, with supporting arguments and references when necessary.
  • Provide a clear evaluation of the strengths, weaknesses, relevance, originality, and significance of the manuscript in its field.
  • If there are aspects you feel unable to evaluate, please state them clearly.

Steps for providing comments:

  1. Identify the main contributions of the manuscript. What are its strengths and weaknesses? Is it suitable for publication?
  2. Provide general and specific comments related to these points, emphasizing the most important aspects.
  3. Support your opinions with specific evidence, whether positive or negative.

If you wish to add direct comments on the PDF file using the Note Tool, you are allowed to do so. However, you are not expected to edit the manuscript extensively. If you add annotations on the PDF, please also provide a summary of general comments. You may upload additional documents (e.g., a separate review document or useful references). Your identity will be removed from the document by the journal’s editorial assistants to maintain anonymity.

Key Points to Consider in the Review

  • Does the manuscript's topic align with the journal’s scope?
  • Is the information presented interesting enough for the journal's readers?
  • Do the title, abstract, keywords, introduction, and conclusion properly reflect the main content of the manuscript?
  • Is the writing clear, concise, and easy to understand without unnecessary repetition?
  • Is the research objective stated clearly?
  • Are the methods appropriate, scientifically valid, up-to-date, and clear enough for replication by others?
  • Was the research conducted ethically? Were appropriate permissions or approvals obtained?
  • Are the statistical analyses used appropriate, well-explained, and sufficiently robust?
  • Are the research results presented in the text supported by the available data? Can these data be verified through tables and figures? Are there any unexpected results?
  • Are the tables and figures truly necessary? Are they clearly labeled and easy to understand? Is there redundant information between the text and the tables/figures?
  • Do the conclusions align with the presented data?
  • Are the references appropriate and relevant? Are any important references missing?
  • Is the manuscript length appropriate for its content? Should any sections be expanded, shortened, combined, or removed?
  • Does the manuscript follow the journal’s writing guidelines?

Potential Ethical Violations in Publication

Please comment if you suspect any ethical violations in research or publication, such as:

  • Does the manuscript contain data or conclusions that have been published previously? If so, please provide details.
  • Are there indications of plagiarism?
  • Is there any possibility of data being fabricated or manipulated inappropriately?
  • Have the authors disclosed all relevant conflicts of interest?

Editorial System

If you have any questions or need assistance regarding the Editorial Manager system, please contact the Managing Editor.