Last modified April 2, 2021
Reviewers must follow the Review Policy principles in their article evaluation process.
Invitation to Review
SBPReports editors select potential reviewers based on their expertise in research areas relevant to the manuscript under consideration. Reviewer invitations are sent by email from the journal's submission system. Use the links in the invitation email to accept or decline. Accept an invitation only if you have the knowledge, time and objectivity necessary to provide an unbiased assessment of the research. In agreeing to complete a review, you also give permission to publish your review under a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY license.
SBPR publishing team supports the transparent review reports, as are major publishers in the field. Thus, SBPR offers authors the possibility to publish review reports with their paper and for reviewers to sign their open review reports. This will only be done at publication with the permission of the reviewer and authors. In all other cases, review reports are considered confidential and will only be disclosed with the explicit permission of the reviewer.
Manuscript pre-evaluation criteria
There are seven criterias that are evaluated by the reviewers:
- Novelty of the findings in the paper
- Significance of the paper to the field
- Accuracy of the results validation and confirmation
- Citation of the previous works; Results and Discussion
- Overall technical rigor
- Quality of the figures
- Quality of the manuscript text and Language Usage
Novelty of the findings in the paper
The original research should not repeat the results already obtained by other researchers. So, this criteria evaluates the novelty of the results, provided in the article.
- The results of the paper completely repeat previous data
- The results of the paper confirm previous data, with the new approach
- The key results of the paper are not novel, however, some of the results are novel
- Main results and conclusions are novel, however, they are merely the development of the previously published works
- The key findings are absolutely novel
Significance of the paper in the field
The key findings should be relevant and significant to the field. So, this criteria evaluates if the paper is of current interest for the field and beyond.
- The author findings do not make sense
- The results of the paper are, probably, not that valuable to the specific field of the authors
- The key conclusions of the authors could be of some interest to the researchers in the field or to the general readership
- The key findings of the work should be of great interest to all the researchers of their field
- The work should be of significant interest to the general readership outside the field of the researchers
Accuracy of the results validation and confirmation
- The results of the paper are validated neither experimentally, nor theoretically
- Some of the results are validated, however, the validation is lacking accuracy and credibility
- The key findings of the work are correctly validated, however, supporting results are in need of strengthening
- Most of the results are correctly validated, however, references to previously published data or literature related results validation are required
- All of the results of the paper have been correctly validated both experimentally and theoretically
Citation of the previous works; Results and Discussion
Background of the work is necessary to understand if the article brings novel claims and findings to the field. Results and Discussion show what exactly is
- Neither background of the work, nor the results discussion are covered sufficiently
- While the discussion seems to cover the results nicely, the background has to be sufficiently modified
- The problem background is covered; however, the discussion lacks integrity and previous works are not cited well enough
- Both the discussion and the background cover the problem, however, corrections and more accurate citation of the previous work is required
- Background, discussion and references are in order
Overall technical rigor
Technical part of the research is essential as the accuracy in performing the systemic research is vital. So, this criteria evaluates the overall technical rigor of the paper.
- Most of the key results were observed in a sloppy and non-accurate manner or the number of the repeats of the experiments is not sufficient for the achievement of the statistical significance. Major improvement of the technical rigor is required.
- Some of the supporting results were obtained non-accurately or the increase of the experimental statistics is required. Overall technical quality of the work is satisfactory.
- Mostly text corrections are needed to improve the technical site of the manuscript and overall understanding of the work
- Technical part of the manuscript is of sufficient quality and requires no improvements
Quality of the figures
For better understanding, the quality of the figures, illustrations and tables should be of high quality. So, this criteria evaluates if the figures etc. are understandable and accurate.
- One can poorly understand how authors base their conclusions from the referenced figures. The visual quality of the figures is not acceptable and does not suit the SBPR standards
- Key results are backed up correctly, however, figures with the supporting results are non-accurately. Some of the figures are clumsy and overloaded. Additional supplementary materials are required.
- Conclusions of the work are covered nicely, but the figures lack accuracy or technical quality
- The figures are of excellent quality
Quality of the manuscript text and Language Usage
The text should be precise and thorough but not overloaded with excessive details. Moreover, the English Usage should be of high quality, so that the readers would understand everything completely.
- Authors should significantly improve their Language usage, as it affects the understanding of the text. The manuscript text is overloaded with minor details and “watery” descriptions and should be generally reworded
- The Language of the manuscript should be improved, although, the overall text quality is satisfactory. Some issues with the understanding of the authors vision are required.
- Minor corrections might be needed, but the general quality is good.
Second Stage of the Reviewing
Based on the criteria above, the reviewer will see the number of potential modifications to the paper and the type of revision (if the reviewer finds the outcome non-suiting, he might correct his evaluation)
- Calculated by the criteria, or due to excessive modifications, required by the reviewer
- The number of additional studies should be calculated based on the evaluation criteria, as we want to overload neither reviewer nor authors
- If the reviewers insist on the number of modifications, exceeding the calculated number, the paper should be rejected
- Mostly text corrections and clarifications
- Additionally, minor modeling calculations, not exceeding the reasonable limit (calculated based on our formulas)
Review Report Limits
SBPR has the strict publishing timeline: the first review round should take less than 21 days; all the further reviewer rounds should take less than 14 days.