Reviewer Guidelines
These guidelines outline what Liver Research – Open Journal (LROJ) expects from peer reviewers, to ensure a fair, rigorous, and constructive review process for every submitted manuscript.
Role of the Reviewer
Reviewers play a central role in evaluating the scientific validity, originality, and clarity of submitted manuscripts. Reviewer feedback directly informs the editorial decision-making process (see Peer Review Policy and Peer Review Process).
Evaluation Criteria
When reviewing a manuscript, reviewers are asked to assess:
- Whether the research question is clearly defined and scientifically significant
- Whether the methodology is sound, appropriate, and described in sufficient detail to be reproducible
- Whether the results are presented clearly and are adequately supported by the data
- Whether the conclusions drawn are justified by the results presented
- Whether the manuscript appropriately cites and engages with relevant prior literature
- Whether there are any apparent ethical concerns, including undisclosed conflicts of interest or inadequate ethical approval documentation
Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review must be treated as strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use the content of a manuscript under review — including its data, methods, or conclusions — for any purpose other than the review itself, and must not retain copies of the manuscript after the review process is complete.
Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest that could compromise their objectivity, including personal or professional relationships with the authors, direct competition in the same research area, or relevant financial interests. Reviewers with a significant conflict should decline the assignment (see Conflict of Interest Policy).
Constructive Feedback
Reviewer comments should be specific, evidence-based, and constructive, providing authors with clear guidance on how to address any identified weaknesses. Reviewers are expected to maintain a professional and respectful tone at all times, focusing feedback on the scientific content of the manuscript rather than the author personally.
Timeliness
Reviewers are asked to complete their review within the timeframe agreed upon at the time of assignment. Reviewers who are unable to meet this timeframe, or who determine partway through that they lack the necessary expertise to properly evaluate the manuscript, are asked to notify the editorial office promptly so an alternative reviewer can be identified.
Recommendation
At the conclusion of the review, reviewers should provide a clear recommendation — Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject — along with the detailed reasoning supporting that recommendation.
