Guidelines for Reviewers

OAORIGINALS relies on the dedication and expertise of its volunteer reviewers to uphold the integrity of its peer review process. These reviewers, distinguished specialists in their respective fields, are best equipped to assess the quality and significance of submitted research. To maintain fairness and objectivity, OAORIGINALS follows a single-anonymized review system, ensuring that reviewers' identities remain confidential from the authors throughout the evaluation process.

I. Peer Review Process

1. The manuscript submission process begins with the author submitting their work and receiving a unique manuscript identification number. The Support Office then conducts a technical evaluation to ensure the manuscript’s formatting and style align with the Instructions for Authors.
2. Next, an editor reviews the submission to determine whether it should proceed to a full peer review. If deemed unsuitable for further evaluation, the editor sends an immediate rejection decision via email. However, if the manuscript is selected for peer review, the editor typically assigns two external reviewers to assess its quality and relevance.
3. Once the reviewers agree to evaluate the manuscript, they submit their reports to the editor, who carefully examines their feedback and makes a final decision. The Support Office then communicates this decision to the author.
4. If the manuscript requires revisions, the author modifies the paper based on the reviewers’ comments and resubmits it. The revised paper undergoes the same review cycle, though the editor may opt to accept it without additional reviewer input.

OAORIGINALS upholds a peer review process that is fair, unbiased, and timely. Manuscript acceptance or rejection is determined based on its significance to the field, originality, clarity, validity, and alignment with the journal’s scope and objectives.

To maintain high ethical standards, OAORIGINALS adheres to established guidelines and best practices, including the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals issued by the ICMJE. It also follows the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, a joint statement by COPE, DOAJ, WAME, and OASPA.

Reviewers are encouraged to carefully read all relevant instructions, ethics policies, and journal guidelines before conducting their review.

Email: admin@oaoriginals.com

II. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

1. Timeliness: Submit comments within two weeks. Contact the Support Office for delays.
2. Conflict of Interest: Disclose any affiliations, financial ties, or personal connections before reviewing. Decline if there's any potential bias.
3. Confidentiality: Do not share manuscript content. Do not use it for personal gain or upload to AI tools.
4. Constructive Feedback: Feedback should be objective, respectful, and improvement-oriented.
5. Impartiality: Base your review only on scientific merit—avoid bias.
6. Expertise: Accept reviews only within your area of expertise.
7. Prior Manuscript Assessments: Treat revised or re-submitted manuscripts as new.
8. Ethical Standards: Report suspected misconduct to the editor.
9. Use of AI-Assisted Tools: Do not upload manuscripts to tools lacking confidentiality assurance. Disclosure is required.

III. Invitation for Peer Review

1. Invitation and Acceptance: Reviewers will receive email invitations with manuscript details. Decline if not available and suggest alternatives if possible. Upon acceptance, access the system to review and submit comments.
2. Reviewing Revised Manuscripts: Focus on whether requested changes were made, rather than introducing new concerns.

IV. Your Comments

1. General Review Standards

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript aligns with OAORIGINALS Journal’s scope and objectives while demonstrating originality, validity, and relevance to its readership.

• Clarity & Structure: Ensure concise and well-organized writing.
• Scientific Accuracy: Look for missing info or flawed methods and suggest improvements.
• Specific Criticism: Base critiques on evidence and include references.
• Respectful Commentary: Avoid hostile or personal remarks.
• Fair Citations: Suggest your own work only when justified.
• Anonymity: Your identity remains confidential in the single-anonymized review model.

2. Key Considerations for Review

• Significance to the research community
• Impact on the journal's readership
• Identified weaknesses requiring revision
• Title, abstract, and keyword accuracy
• Completeness of figures, tables, and data
• Accuracy and appropriateness of references
• Language clarity and readability
• Consistency of the study’s aims
• Statistical accuracy (if applicable)
• Data presentation in the results section
• Conclusions backed by evidence

3. Confidential Comments to the Editor

Use this section for ethical concerns, potential conflicts of interest, or private feedback not to be shared with authors.

4. Comments for Authors

Begin with a brief overview paragraph. Then organize feedback as follows:

• Major issues: Substantial revision needed.
• Minor points: Style or clarity suggestions.

Do not state whether the manuscript should be accepted or rejected.

5. Final Publication Decisions

While reviewers offer critical input, OAORIGINALS’ editorial team makes final decisions based on all reviews submitted.