REVIEWER GUIDELINES

UKR Publisher – Universal Knowledge Research Publisher, peer reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of published research. Our double-blind peer-review process ensures fairness, confidentiality, and constructive evaluation. Reviewers are expected to follow these guidelines when assessing manuscripts.

1. Reviewer Responsibilities

• Provide objective, fair, and unbiased assessments of submitted manuscripts.
• Maintain confidentiality and do not share manuscript content with unauthorized parties.
• Identify originality, relevance, and ethical integrity in the research.
• Offer constructive feedback to help authors improve their work.
• Flag any plagiarism, ethical concerns, or conflicts of interest.
• Complete the review within the assigned timeframe or request an extension if necessary.

2. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on the following key aspects:

• a) Originality and Significance
  Is the study novel and does it contribute to existing knowledge? Does it present new ideas, methods, or findings?
• b) Clarity and Structure
  Is the title clear and concise? Is the abstract well-written and informative? Is the paper logically structured (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion)?
• c) Research Methodology
  Are the research design, methodology, and data collection appropriate? Is the study reproducible and transparent?
• d) Data Analysis and Interpretation
  Are the results clearly presented and well-supported by data? Is statistical analysis, if applicable, accurate and appropriate?
• e) References and Citations
  Are references properly cited in APA format? Are key sources relevant and up-to-date?

3. Ethical Considerations

• Plagiarism – Identical or significantly similar content from other published sources.
• Fabricated or Manipulated Data – Any indications of falsified research results.
• Conflicts of Interest – If a reviewer has personal or professional conflicts with the authors.
• Duplicate Submission – If the manuscript appears to have been submitted to multiple journals.

4. Review Process and Feedback

• Reviews should be clear, detailed, and constructive to help authors improve their work.
• Avoid personal, biased, or vague criticism—focus on academic and technical aspects.
• Clearly indicate if revisions are minor (small edits) or major (substantial changes).
• Use professional language and avoid dismissive or harsh comments.

5. Recommendation Options

• ✅ Accept as it is – The manuscript meets all standards and requires no revisions.
• 🔄 Minor Revisions – The manuscript is acceptable with slight improvements.
• ⚠️ Major Revisions – Significant changes are required before reconsideration.
• ❌ Reject – The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards for publication.

6. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

• Do not share, distribute, or discuss the manuscript with others.
• Inform the editor if you recognize the authors or have any conflict of interest.
• Decline the review if you feel unqualified or unable to provide a fair assessment.