For Reviewers
1. Peer Review and Editorial Process
Peer review is a cornerstone of the publication process and ensures that Discoveries uphold the highest scholarly standards. All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous and impartial peer review conducted by qualified experts.
Following submission, the Managing/Executive/Senior Editors conduct an initial screening check (which can lead to a rejection of the manuscript or to the initiation of the peer-review process), followed by the assignment of an Academic Editor. The Editor then coordinates an independent peer review, requests at least two reviewer reports and formulates a decision.
For transparency, preliminary reviewer reports are shared with authors via our platform once peer review concludes. Authors are advised not to revise until official editorial feedback is provided. Authors are expected to address reviewers’ comments thoroughly, with additional rounds of review conducted when necessary. Accepted articles are professionally copy-edited and English-edited. Further details on the editorial workflow are available on the Discoveries' website.
2. Reviewer Profiles and Responsibilities
Reviewers play a critical role in safeguarding the integrity of the scholarly record. They are expected to conduct reviews in a timely, fair, transparent, and ethical manner, in accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Eligibility Criteria
Reviewers should:
- Have no conflicts of interest with the authors;
- Not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors;
- Not have co-authored publications with the authors within the past three years;
- Hold a PhD, MD, equivalent qualification, and/or show an outstanding level of expertise through publications;
- Demonstrate relevant expertise and a strong publication record in the manuscript’s field (verifiable via Google Scholar, ResearcherID or ORCID);
- Possess recognized academic or research affiliations.
Reviewers are expected to:
- Possess the expertise required to evaluate scientific quality;
- Provide thorough, high-quality, and timely review reports;
- Maintain professionalism, objectivity, and ethical standards throughout the review process.
3.1 Invitation to Review
Manuscripts submitted to Discoveries are reviewed by at least two experts. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the scientific quality of the manuscript and provide a recommendation regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection.
Reviewers are requested to:
- Accept or decline invitations promptly after reviewing the title and abstract;
- Suggest alternative reviewers when declining an invitation;
- Request deadline extensions promptly if additional time is required.
Reviewers must disclose any actual or perceived conflicts of interest and inform the Editorial Office if uncertainty exists. Potential conflicts include, but are not limited to:
- Employment at the same institution as one or more authors;
- Recent collaboration or co-authorship with any of the authors (within the past three years);
- Personal, financial, or professional relationships that may influence objectivity;
- Any other non-financial conflicts (political, ideological, academic, or commercial).
3.3 Confidentiality
Discoveries operates single- or double-blind peer review. Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential, and reviewers must not disclose manuscript content or their identity to authors.
Reviewers may not share manuscripts with colleagues without prior approval from the Editorial Office. Open Peer Review is only implemented upon publication and with reviewer consent; otherwise, all review reports remain confidential.
3.4 Review Reports
Review reports must be written in English and should be objective, constructive, and scientifically focused.
Reviewers should:
- Read the full manuscript and any supplementary materials carefully;
- Provide detailed comments that allow authors to respond effectively;
- Avoid inappropriate citation requests, including excessive self-citation;
- Maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Reviewers should be attentive to established reporting and ethical standards (e.g., ICMJE, CONSORT, PRISMA, ARRIVE) and report any concerns regarding compliance.
3.5 Manuscript Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are asked to assess the following aspects:
- Novelty and originality;
- Scope and relevance to the journal;
- Scientific significance and validity;
- Methodological rigor and reproducibility;
- Data quality, transparency, and interpretation;
- Organization of the manuscript;
- Reader interest and overall contribution;
- Quality and clarity of the English language.
3.6 Overall Recommendation
Reviewers should provide one of the following recommendations:
- Accept as is
- Accept after minor revision
- Reconsider after major revision
- Reject