Reviewers Guidelines

 
CONFIDENTIALITY  •  OBJECTIVITY  •  FAIRNESS  •  SCHOLARLY INTEGRITY

Reviewers Guidelines

 

The Research Dialogue

An Online Quarterly Multidisciplinary Peer-Reviewed and Refereed Research Journal

Double-Blind Review Multidisciplinary Confidential Independent Assessment Research Integrity
✦
ROLE OF PEER REVIEWERS

Safeguarding the Quality of Scholarly Research

The Research Dialogue recognises peer reviewers as an essential part of the scholarly publication process. Their independent academic assessment helps the journal maintain standards of originality, methodological quality, relevance, clarity, ethical compliance and research integrity.

As a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research journal, The Research Dialogue welcomes scholarly contributions from diverse areas including humanities, social sciences, education, languages, science, mathematics, commerce, economics, management, law, computer science, engineering, agriculture, health sciences, environmental studies and other established or emerging disciplines.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts within their fields of expertise objectively, constructively, confidentially and without inappropriate bias. The purpose of peer review is not merely to recommend acceptance or rejection, but also to help strengthen the scholarly quality of submitted research.

CORE REVIEW PRINCIPLES

Principles of Responsible Peer Review

1
Confidentiality
2
Objectivity
3
Independence
4
Integrity
01   BEFORE ACCEPTING A REVIEW

Reviewer Suitability and Availability

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should carefully determine whether they possess appropriate subject or methodological expertise and whether they can complete a careful assessment within the requested time.

✓ Subject Expertise: Accept the review only when the manuscript falls reasonably within your field of academic or professional competence.

✓ Availability: Ensure that sufficient time is available to conduct a thoughtful and responsible review.

✓ Conflict of Interest: Consider whether any personal, institutional, professional, collaborative or financial relationship could affect impartial judgement.

✓ Prompt Response: If unable to undertake the review, decline the invitation promptly so that another qualified reviewer can be appointed.

02   CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE REVIEW PROCESS

Confidential Treatment of Manuscripts

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential scholarly documents. Reviewers must not unnecessarily disclose, distribute, reproduce or discuss the manuscript or its contents with unauthorised persons.

Unpublished information, arguments, research data, interpretations, methods, tables, figures or findings obtained through the peer-review process must not be used for personal research, professional advantage, commercial benefit or competitive purposes.

Confidentiality continues after the review has been completed, irrespective of whether the manuscript is accepted or rejected.

03

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest that may compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, the independence of their evaluation.

A conflict may arise from personal relationships, institutional connections, recent academic collaboration, direct competition, financial interests or other circumstances capable of influencing scholarly judgement.

Where uncertainty exists, the reviewer should inform the Editorial Office and allow the Editor to determine whether the review assignment should proceed.

04   EVALUATION OF THE MANUSCRIPT

Core Criteria for Scholarly Assessment

Reviewers should assess each manuscript according to its discipline, research objectives, methodology and intended scholarly contribution. Evaluation should normally consider the following:

Originality
Does the manuscript offer an original or meaningful scholarly contribution?
Research Problem
Are the objectives, questions or hypotheses clearly identified?
Methodology
Are the research design and methods appropriate and adequately explained?
Evidence and Data
Are the evidence, data and analytical procedures appropriate and credible?
Results
Are the findings clearly reported and supported by the study?
Discussion
Are the findings adequately interpreted in relation to existing scholarship?
Conclusion
Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and objectives?
References
Are cited sources relevant, accurate and reasonably sufficient?
Presentation
Is the manuscript logically organised and clearly written?
Scholarly Contribution
Does the study contribute meaningfully to its field or interdisciplinary area?
05   MULTIDISCIPLINARY REVIEW

Respecting Disciplinary Diversity

Because The Research Dialogue is multidisciplinary, reviewers should evaluate manuscripts according to the legitimate scholarly and methodological conventions of the relevant discipline.

Standards of methodology, evidence, structure and interpretation may vary across humanities, social sciences, sciences, mathematics, technology, commerce, management and other fields. Reviewers should therefore avoid applying inappropriate disciplinary expectations to research originating from another scholarly tradition.

Interdisciplinary manuscripts should be evaluated on the quality with which they integrate concepts, theories, methods or evidence from more than one field into a coherent scholarly contribution.

06

Originality and Research Integrity

Reviewers should remain attentive to possible research-integrity and publication-ethics concerns. Any concern should be reported confidentially to the Editor rather than presented as an unsupported accusation against the authors.

✓ Suspected plagiarism or unattributed reproduction of published material.

✓ Possible duplicate or redundant publication.

✓ Fabrication, falsification or unexplained manipulation of research data.

✓ Misleading manipulation of figures, photographs, tables or other evidence.

✓ Missing ethical approval or informed-consent information where required.

✓ Citation manipulation, fabricated references or significant citation irregularities.

07   CONSTRUCTIVE REVIEW COMMENTS

Providing Useful Scholarly Feedback

Reviewer comments should assist authors in understanding both the strengths and limitations of their manuscripts. Recommendations for revision should be sufficiently specific to enable authors to respond meaningfully.

Comments should be academically reasoned, evidence-based, constructive and respectful. Criticism must focus on the manuscript and its scholarly content rather than on the presumed identity or characteristics of the author.

Personal attacks, humiliating remarks, hostile language, discriminatory observations or unnecessarily dismissive comments are incompatible with responsible peer review.

08   REFERENCES AND CITATION ETHICS

Responsible Citation Recommendations

Reviewers may identify important scholarly literature that appears to have been overlooked where such references are genuinely relevant to the manuscript.

Reviewers must not pressure authors to cite the reviewer's own publications, the journal's publications or unrelated work merely to increase citation counts.

Every suggested reference should have a clear scholarly relationship to the research under review.

09

Double-Blind Peer Review

The Research Dialogue ordinarily follows a double-blind peer-review process. The identity of the author is concealed from reviewers and the identity of reviewers is concealed from authors during peer review.

Reviewers should not intentionally attempt to identify authors through online searches, institutional directories, social media profiles, citation patterns or other external means.

Review reports should also avoid unnecessary information that could reveal the identity of the reviewer.

10   USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BY REVIEWERS

Confidentiality and Human Scholarly Judgement

Reviewers remain personally responsible for the intellectual assessment, comments and recommendation contained in their review reports.

A confidential manuscript, unpublished research data or identifiable manuscript content should not be uploaded into publicly accessible generative artificial-intelligence systems or other external platforms where confidentiality, privacy or data retention cannot be adequately assured.

Artificial-intelligence tools must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly judgement. Any technological assistance used in connection with the review must remain consistent with confidentiality, research integrity and applicable journal policies.

11   REVIEW REPORT STRUCTURE

Suggested Structure for Reviewer Comments

01 Overall Assessment – Briefly describe the overall quality, relevance and scholarly significance of the manuscript.
02 Major Comments – Identify substantive concerns involving methodology, evidence, interpretation, argument or conclusions.
03 Minor Comments – Identify smaller issues relating to clarity, terminology, references, tables, figures or presentation.
04 Recommendation – Provide an editorial recommendation consistent with the detailed comments supplied.
12

Editorial Recommendation

After completing the scholarly assessment, the reviewer should select an editorial recommendation consistent with the observations and concerns contained in the review report.

Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Resubmission
Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or authorised Editorial Committee after consideration of the reviewer reports, manuscript quality, revisions, ethical compliance and journal policy.

13   TIMELINESS OF REVIEW

Completing the Review Promptly

Reviewers should make reasonable efforts to complete their assessment within the period specified in the review invitation or journal's online system.

If unexpected circumstances prevent completion of the review within the expected period, the reviewer should inform the Editorial Office as early as possible so that an extension or alternative arrangement may be considered.

14   COMMUNICATION WITH AUTHORS

Communication through the Editorial Office

Reviewers should not communicate directly with authors concerning a manuscript under review unless specifically authorised by the Editorial Office.

Requests for clarification, concerns about manuscript integrity and other review-related matters should ordinarily be communicated through the journal's editorial system or directly to the responsible Editor.

15

Review of Revised Manuscripts

Reviewers may be invited to reassess a manuscript following revision. In such cases, reviewers should focus particularly on whether the authors have adequately addressed the substantive concerns raised during the previous round of review.

Where an author provides a reasoned explanation for not implementing a particular recommendation, the reviewer should consider whether that explanation is academically justified rather than requiring mechanical compliance with every previous suggestion.

16   POST-REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES

Responsibilities after Submission of the Review

After submitting the review report, reviewers must continue to preserve the confidentiality of the manuscript and the editorial process.

Reviewers should not publicly disclose that they reviewed a particular unpublished manuscript unless such disclosure is authorised by the journal and consistent with the applicable review model.

If a reviewer later becomes aware of a significant factual, scholarly or ethical concern relating to a manuscript previously reviewed, the matter should be communicated confidentially to the Editor.

A HIGH-QUALITY REVIEW SHOULD BE

Characteristics of an Effective Peer-Review Report

Objective Constructive Evidence-Based Respectful Specific Confidential Independent Timely Academically Reasoned
✓

Reviewer Ethical Commitment

By accepting a manuscript for review for The Research Dialogue, the reviewer agrees to conduct the assessment independently, objectively, confidentially and in accordance with responsible scholarly and publication-ethics principles.

The reviewer agrees not to misuse confidential information obtained during peer review, not to allow personal or professional interests to influence academic judgement and to provide recommendations based on the scholarly strengths and limitations of the manuscript.

IMPORTANT NOTE

Peer Review Supports Editorial Decision-Making

Peer reviewers provide independent scholarly advice to assist the editorial decision-making process. Reviewer recommendations do not independently determine publication. The Editor-in-Chief or authorised Editorial Committee retains responsibility for the final decision and may request additional review, clarification or specialist assessment where necessary.

✦

Thank You to Our Reviewers

 

The Research Dialogue sincerely appreciates the expertise, time and scholarly service contributed by its peer reviewers. Their independent assessments strengthen manuscript quality, support authors and help protect the integrity of published research.

 
The Research Dialogue
MANIFESTATION OF PERFECTION
MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH  •  PEER REVIEW  •  SCHOLARLY INTEGRITY