Ethical Guidelines for the Reviewers

Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

The Journal of Environmental Sciences and Sustainability (JESS) recognizes that peer review is a cornerstone of the scholarly publication process. It plays a vital role in maintaining the journal’s quality, credibility, and academic integrity. Reviewers assist the Editor in decision-making and help authors improve their manuscripts through constructive feedback.

These guidelines, aligned with the ethical framework recommended by the Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan, are designed to ensure that all reviewers perform their responsibilities with fairness, objectivity, and professionalism.


1. Suitability and Promptness

Reviewers should:

  • Inform the Editor immediately if they lack sufficient expertise in the subject area.

  • Accept reviews only when they can complete them within the agreed timeframe.

  • Notify the Editor promptly if any delay is expected and suggest an alternative submission date.

  • Avoid unnecessary delays by refraining from requesting irrelevant or excessive additional data.


2. Standards of Objectivity

  • Reviews must be conducted objectively, adhering to high academic and scientific standards.

  • Comments should be clear, specific, and supported by sound reasoning, enabling both Editors and authors to understand the feedback.

  • Criticism should focus on the content of the manuscript—personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.

  • Reviewers must base their evaluations solely on the paper’s quality, relevance, and originality, without influence from personal, financial, or intellectual biases.


3. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

  • Unpublished data or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used for personal advantage.

  • Reviewers must treat all materials as confidential and refrain from using any part of them in their own research.

  • Any potential conflicts of interest—personal, financial, academic, professional, or political—must be disclosed to the Editor.

  • If a reviewer feels unable to provide an impartial review due to a conflict, they should decline the invitation and explain the reason to the Editor.


4. Confidentiality

  • All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents.

  • Reviewers must not share or discuss their contents with others without the Editor’s authorization.

  • No information regarding a manuscript should be disclosed prior to its official publication.


5. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers must:

  • Alert the Editor if they suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplication of previously published work.

  • Report any evidence of unethical research practices involving human or animal subjects.

  • Identify and report any major ethical or methodological concerns, including unacknowledged prior studies or false results.


6. Originality Assessment

When assessing originality, reviewers should consider:

  • Whether the manuscript makes a significant contribution to existing knowledge.

  • Whether the research questions and hypotheses align with the study’s stated objectives.


7. Manuscript Structure and Presentation

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript adheres to journal formatting and structure. Key considerations include:

  • Language quality and clarity of expression; if editing is required, note this in the review report.

  • Originality and proper citation of data, illustrations, and figures.

  • Accuracy and appropriateness of statistical analyses.

  • Consistency between data, results, and discussion.

  • Proper organization according to journal guidelines and absence of typographical or formatting errors.


8. Review Report

  • Reviewers should provide detailed and constructive comments to assist both the Editor and authors.

  • All observations should be written clearly in the designated “Comments” section.

  • Reviewers are encouraged to begin their report with a concise summary outlining their overall impression and final recommendation.

  • Deficiencies and suggested revisions must be stated explicitly and justified with evidence or reasoning.

  • The reviewer’s final recommendation should be clearly categorized as:
    Accept without Revision, Accept with Revision, or Reject.

  • The Editor retains the final decision regarding publication, taking into account all reviewer feedback.