Reviewer Guidelines

Document version 1.2. Last review: 31/01/2025.

1. Introduction

Journal Mission: The Southern Journal of Sciences aims to publish original and relevant research that reflects the "state of the science" and includes practical applications. Peer reviews are critical to the editorial process and quality of the Journal. A well-done review is essential to guide authors in revising their work.

2. Review Process Flow

The review process follows these steps:

  1. Email invitation: Reviewers will receive a formal email invitation to conduct the review
  2. Response to invitation: The reviewer must accept or decline the invitation within the stipulated timeframe
  3. Manuscript access: After accepting, the reviewer will receive access to the complete manuscript
  4. Detailed analysis: Conduct thorough reading and careful analysis of the work
  5. Form completion: Use the official form available at https://www.sjofsciences.com/referee-form.php
  6. Review submission: Return the completed form along with any additional observations via email southbchem@gmail.com

3. Double-Blind Peer Review System

The journal employs a double-blind peer-review system where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process. All manuscripts are peer-reviewed by at least two independent referees.

4. Conflict of Interest

This journal defines conflict of interest as any matter that interferes with the complete and objective presentation, peer-review, editorial decisions, or the publication of research articles. The conflict of interest can have:

  • Financial roots
  • Professional or personal motivations
  • Relations to an organization or another person
Mandatory for reviewers: If any conflict of interest emerges during a manuscript's evaluation, please return it to the editors immediately for resolution, redistribution, or rejection of the case.

5. Content of the Review

  • Focus on the scientific content rather than grammar or punctuation (the Journal has a team for that)
  • Verify if the content reflects current state of science and includes practical applications
  • Check citations and references:
    • Must be appropriate and reasonably recent (most within 10 years)
    • Should come from credible sources
    • Must be primary sources - from original research articles or databases
  • Report any suspicion of plagiarism, even though all submissions are checked through plagiarism detection software
  • If recommending revision, provide detailed comments to guide the author

6. Tone of the Review

Write your narrative in a nonjudgmental style:

  • Begin with positive aspects when possible
  • Be encouraging and specific in revision comments
  • Avoid disparaging or non-constructive critical remarks
  • Maintain professionalism throughout the review

7. Confidentiality

  • All submitted reviews are confidential and are the Journal's property
  • Reviews may not be disseminated or published elsewhere
  • Manuscripts should be treated as confidential material
  • To involve another colleague in the review, contact the editors-in-chief first
  • Keep a copy of your review narrative for three months

8. Review Process and Deadlines

Initial Review:

  • Standard deadline: 2-3 weeks for completing the review
  • Contact editors if more time is needed
Revised Manuscripts:
  • Authors have three months to submit revisions
  • Must be submitted to the same email address by the original submitting author
  • Authors must answer all referees' comments with detailed changes or justifications

9. Final Version

After all questions about referees' comments and revisions are resolved:

  • Editors will notify authors of acceptance or rejection
  • Editors reserve the right to make minor changes to adjust to Journal rules or improve style
  • Content integrity will be maintained during any editorial adjustments

10. Review Form

Your review should include:

  1. The completed form available here. After completing your review, please send it to the journal's email address as a reply to the invitation message you received."
  2. General Evaluation: Scoring of originality, clarity, methodology
  3. Section-Specific Comments: For introduction, methods, results, discussion, references
  4. Final Recommendations: Decision and justification
  5. Confidential Comments: Observations for editors only

11. Support and Recognition

  • Contact editors-in-chief for any questions or support needed
  • Reviewers may receive certificates of participation
  • Recognition may be provided in annual publications