Analytical chemistry council

METHODS AND OBJECTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

ISSN title: "Metody i obʺekty himičeskogo analiza"

An international journal devoted to all aspects of Analytical chemistry

ISSN 2413-6166 (Online), ISSN 1991-0290 (Print)

Kiev University
    Ukr | En
Home Current issue Call for papers ReceivedContact us

For reviewers

Referee report

Introduction

Scholarly peer review is the practice of subjecting scholarly work to the scrutiny of experts in the field, with the goal of validating and improving the content prior to publication. In essence, scholarly peer review is the endeavor of one researcher to offer another researcher advice about the acceptability of an idea, concept, or activity.
Without good referees, the peer review system cannot work, so it is up to all of us to write honest and useful peer review reports.

benefits to be a reviewer

There are many benefits to becoming a reviewer. As a reviewer, you can further establish your expertise in a field, get an early look at potentially groundbreaking research, develop critical thinking skills, and gain experience writing and responding to constructive criticism. Even better, you will learn what mistakes to avoid as an author, and gain insight into what editors are looking for in a high-quality publication. Serving as a peer reviewer is a considerable responsibility, but makes a lasting contribution to the publication process.

How to become good at peer review

A thoughtful, well-presented evaluation of a manuscript, with tangible suggestions for improvement and a recommendation that is supported by the comments, is the most valuable contribution that you can make as a reviewer. And, such a review is greatly appreciated by both the authors of the manuscript and the editors of the journal.
Remember that the article is being evaluated and not the author, so be polite and fair at all times.
The end goal is to ensure that only high-quality research is published and to prevent the distribution of incorrect or fraudulent data.

The goal of peer review is to help the authors improve the quality of their paper, and the best way to achieve this is by giving them concrete examples and advice. Purely negative comments without clear suggestions on how to make the manuscript better are mostly useless. Instead of writing general sentences like “the results are unclear” or “the manuscript needs to be rewritten,” the feedback should be more specific letting the authors know exactly what can be improved. Which parts of their paper are unclear and why? What changes could they make to support their claims? Are more experiments required, and if yes, which ones? Make sure that the changes to be made are realistic and can be performed within a reasonable time.

Dos and Don’ts of Writing a Good Peer Review Report

Dos’s Don’ts
Ask yourself honestly whether you have the time and expertise to review the paper. Accept any reviewing invitations if there are conflicts of interest with the authors or the subject of the study. Also, you may not talk about the manuscript, its results, or its methods with outsiders (nor use any information from the paper) prior to its publication.
Take your reviewing task seriously and read the manuscript carefully and critically. Write your report in an understandable and organized way. Be unnecessarily harsh or unpolite; your criticism should be constructive in tone.
Let the editors know if you need any additional information from the authors to help you write a balanced and well-substantiated report. Be intimidated by big names or famous research groups. That’s no guarantee that the paper is good.
Start by listing out the significance and positive aspects of the manuscript and then indicate what can be improved. Comment on large issues first and go on to smaller issues later. Write vague, general comments without clear instructions of what should be changed.
Evaluate the reliability of the data, hypothesis, references, and suitability of the methods as carefully as possible. Be afraid to seek support if you need it. Sometimes you may have to check the literature or ask other scholars for guidance in order to make a fair assessment (keeping the manuscript information confidential, of course).
Be realistic about the changes you suggest and make sure that they can be carried out in a reasonable way. Be late with your report. If you agree to review a paper within a deadline, you should stick to it (unless there is a very good reason why you can’t do it).

Ethics In Peer Review

We seeks reviewers who exemplify the highest standards regarding ethics and anonymity within the review process. As an reviewer, you are asked to evaluate manuscripts with utmost discretion while employing your expertise.

Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review

A conflict of interest involves a situation in which a person or group can benefit from the actions or decisions they make in their professional role. In peer review, a conflict of interest occurs when you (as the reviewer) have a personal or financial interest in the outcome of the review process due to your connection to the authors, their funding organization, or their research, of which the editor may not be aware. In such cases, the conflict of interest could interfere with your ability to remain objective while evaluating the manuscript. Alternatively, such a conflict of interest could make a reasonable person suspect that the connection may have interfered with your judgment.

Types of Conflict of Interest
a) The authors of the manuscript are your close friends, colleagues, or collaborators
b) You have a contentious relationship with the authors.
A conflict of interest may arise when you have a professional (or less than professional) rivalry with the authors. If you feel that the authors constantly and needlessly criticize your work, or your research groups often compete to publish similar results first, you may not be able to provide an unbiased opinion of the authors' work. In such a case, it is best to inform the editor that you have a potential conflict of interest, and allow the editor to decide if you should continue to review the manuscript.
c)You may receive personal or financial gain from publication of the paper
d) You are working on a very similar project, which may be hindered by publication of the paper

goal of the Review

The ultimate goal is for you to assist authors in creating the best possible publication that represents the unique and innovative research that they want to share with their peers.

Referee report


Publisher:Taras Shevchenko National University, Kiev Ukraine

(Analytical chemistry department at Taras Shevchenko National University, 64 Vladimirskaya STR., Kiev, 01601 UKRAINE)
analysis@univ.kiev.ua, www.achem.univ.kiev.ua, +380-44-2393266

The journal is indexed in SCOPUS and Web of Science

The journal website: www.moca.net.ua

The articles in this journal are licensed under CC BY 4.0