Guide for Reviewers

On this page

Locke Science Publisher

This guide describes expectations for peer reviewers across all journals published by Locke Science Publisher. Journal-specific details (scope, review timelines, and submission types) are provided in each journal’s reviewer invitation and website.

1. The role of reviewers

Reviewers are essential to the quality, credibility, and usefulness of scholarly publishing. Your review helps to:

  • assess whether a submission meets appropriate scholarly and professional standards

  • strengthen manuscripts through constructive, actionable feedback

  • support fair editorial decisions and maintain the journal’s scope and relevance

Peer review is a collegial process. Reviews should be rigorous, respectful, and aimed at improving the work.

2. Peer review model and confidentiality

All journals of Locke Science Publisher are single-blind peer review, reviewers remain anonymous to authors. Do not reveal your identity in the review text or in tracked changes.

By accepting a review invitation, you agree to:

  • treat the manuscript and all review correspondence as confidential

  • not share the manuscript with students, colleagues, or third parties without explicit permission from the journal

  • not use, cite, distribute, or build on any unpublished ideas, data, designs, or text from the manuscript until it is formally published and publicly available

  • keep editorial communications confidential (decision letters, reviewer discussions, reviewer identities)

You should not upload the manuscript or any substantial part of it into external tools or platforms that do not guarantee strict confidentiality.

3. Conflicts of interest

You must decline the review (or immediately inform the journal) if you have a conflict that could compromise impartiality, including situations where:

  • you are or have recently been a co-author, project collaborator, or close colleague of an author

  • you are in a supervisory or mentoring relationship with an author (advisor/advisee)

  • you stand to gain or lose direct personal, financial, or institutional benefit from the outcome

  • you feel unable to provide an objective evaluation

If you are unsure whether a situation constitutes a conflict, briefly explain it in your reply and ask for guidance.

4. Scope and fit

One of your first tasks is to assess whether the submission fits the journal’s aims and scope.

If the manuscript is clearly outside scope, please state this early in your comments and explain why. If it could be suitable with reframing, indicate what would be needed (e.g., clearer alignment to the journal’s audience, stronger engagement with relevant literature, or a revised focus).

5. What to evaluate (research articles)

When reviewing a research paper, consider the following dimensions.

5.1 Originality and contribution

  • does the manuscript address a significant and well-defined problem?

  • does it offer new insights, methods, data, interpretations, or useful synthesis?

  • does it clearly explain how it advances existing literature and practice?

  • does it explain what is new compared to prior work?

5.2 Theoretical and empirical soundness

  • are the research questions and conceptual framing clear and appropriate?

  • are methods suitable, transparent, and rigorously applied?

  • are data, cases, or evidence sufficient to support conclusions?

  • are limitations and assumptions acknowledged appropriately?

5.3 Clarity and structure

  • is the paper logically organized (introduction, background, methods, results, discussion, conclusions)?

  • is the writing clear and accessible to the journal’s audience?

  • is the abstract accurate and informative?

  • are key terms defined and arguments easy to follow?

5.4 Implications for practice and future research

  • does the manuscript explain practical or policy relevance where appropriate?

  • does it identify how the work can inform practice, design, planning, implementation, or decision-making?

  • does it suggest credible directions for future research?

5.5 Scholarship and referencing

  • are references relevant, current, and sufficient?

  • are citations accurate and consistent?

  • does the manuscript properly acknowledge prior work, datasets, and tools?

5.6 Figures, tables, and visual material

  • do figures and tables add value and clarify the text?

  • are they legible, correctly labeled, and cited in the text?

  • are captions adequate and informative?

  • are visuals ethically and legally acceptable (no misleading manipulation; permissions where required)?

6. Additional criteria (design and planning project submissions, where applicable)

For journals that accept design/planning project submissions, also evaluate:

  • clarity of objectives and evaluation criteria

  • evidence-based decision-making (use of systematically collected information, evaluation, or research insights)

  • contribution to practice and transferable knowledge

  • adequacy of documentation (drawings, photographs, diagrams, and explanatory text)

  • coherence between stated goals, process, and outcomes

7. Recommendation categories

Your recommendation to the editor will typically fall into one of the following:

  • accept as is

  • minor revisions

  • major revisions

  • reject

Please ensure your recommendation is supported by clear reasoning and by specific, actionable comments.

8. How to structure your review

A helpful review usually contains two parts.

8.1 Comments to the editor (confidential)

Include:

  • a brief summary of your overall assessment

  • major concerns (e.g., originality, ethics, conflicts of interest, scope fit)

  • a concise justification for your recommendation

8.2 Comments to the author(s)

Start with a short, neutral summary of the manuscript in your own words. Then provide numbered comments:

  • strengths (what works well and should be preserved)

  • major issues (what must be addressed for the work to be publishable)

  • minor issues (clarifications, wording, formatting, reference fixes, figure labeling)

Please be:

  • constructive (even if recommending rejection, explain how the work could be improved)

  • respectful and professional (avoid dismissive or personal language)

  • concrete (cite sections, figures, tables, or specific points)

Do not include identifying information about yourself in comments intended for the author(s).

9. Timeliness

To support an efficient review process, reviewers are asked to:

  • respond to invitations promptly (ideally within 7 days) to accept or decline

  • submit the review within the deadline stated in the invitation (commonly 6–8 weeks, unless specified otherwise)

  • notify the editor as soon as possible if you anticipate delay, so alternative arrangements can be made

10. Language quality and revision advice

If the research is promising but the language is weak:

  • focus your review on substance (methods, logic, contribution)

  • indicate clearly where language editing is needed

  • provide a few examples, but you are not expected to copyedit the entire manuscript

If you recommend additional literature:

  • suggest only genuinely relevant sources

  • avoid excessive self-citation or references suggested solely to increase citations

11. Open access and CC BY 4.0

Locke Science Publisher journals operate under a diamond open access model and publish articles under CC BY 4.0. For reviewers, this means that once published, articles can be read, shared, and reused widely with proper attribution. Your peer review supports the creation of freely accessible scholarship.

12. Questions

If you have questions about the review process, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, or review expectations, contact the relevant journal editorial office. For general inquiries, contact: CustomerCare@LockeScience.press