ISSN: 2522-266X
ERBF relies on expert reviewers to maintain the quality and integrity of its published work.
The following guidelines are intended to assist reviewers in providing constructive and effective evaluations.
Upon receiving a review invitation, please respond promptly. Accept only if the manuscript falls within your area of expertise and you can complete the review within the given deadline. If you have a conflict of interest with the authors or the research, or if you cannot meet the deadline, please decline the invitation so that an alternative reviewer can be assigned.
All manuscripts submitted to ERBF must be treated as confidential documents. Do not share, discuss, or disclose the content of the manuscript to anyone outside the review process. Do not retain copies of the manuscript after submitting your review. If you wish to consult a colleague on a specific aspect of the manuscript, please contact the editor for permission first.
Reviewers should provide an honest, objective, and constructive evaluation. Criticisms should be supported by evidence or specific references. Personal attacks on the author are unacceptable. The goal of the review is to help authors improve their work, whether or not the manuscript is ultimately accepted.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript on five criteria, each scored from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent): originality (does the work present novel ideas or findings?), methodology (is the research design sound and appropriate?), clarity (is the manuscript well-written and clearly structured?), relevance (does the work contribute meaningfully to its field?), and overall quality (what is the overall scholarly merit?). In addition to scores, reviewers should provide detailed written comments addressing the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
A helpful review typically includes the following: a brief summary of the manuscript's main argument and contribution, major issues that must be addressed (methodology, analysis, interpretation), minor issues (language, formatting, references), specific suggestions for improvement with page or section references, and a clear recommendation (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject).
The review form provides two separate text fields. "Comments to the Author" will be shared with the author(s) as part of the decision letter. "Confidential Comments to the Editor" are visible only to the editorial team and will not be shared with the author(s). Use the confidential section for concerns about ethics, originality, or other sensitive matters.
Reviewers are expected to complete their initial review within 4 to 6 weeks of acceptance. For re-reviews of revised manuscripts, a 3-week turnaround is requested. If you anticipate a delay, please notify the editorial office as soon as possible so that alternative arrangements can be made.
Reviewers must alert the editor if they suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, or other ethical violations. Reviewers must not use ideas, data, or arguments from the manuscript for their own benefit before publication. If a reviewer recognizes the author's identity despite the double-blind process, they should notify the editor if this creates a conflict of interest.