Reviewer Guidelines
Thank you for your essential contribution to Digital Evolution Journal. Your expertise ensures the quality and integrity of our publications. These guidelines will help you conduct a thorough and constructive peer review.
The Review Process
Our journal uses a double-blind, 10-reviewer system to ensure impartiality. Neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identities. The process is as follows:
- Invitation: You will receive an email invitation with the manuscript's abstract to determine if the topic aligns with your expertise.
- Acceptance: If you accept, you will gain access to the full manuscript. Please accept only if you can complete the review within the specified timeframe (typically 21 days).
- Review: Evaluate the manuscript based on the criteria below. Your review should be submitted through our online portal.
- Decision: The handling editor will make a final decision based on the feedback from all 10 reviewers.
Evaluation Criteria
Please assess the manuscript on the following key dimensions:
- Originality and Novelty: Is the research question original? Does it present new findings or a novel approach to an existing problem? Does it advance the current body of knowledge?
- Methodology and Technical Soundness: Is the methodology robust, well-described, and appropriate for the research question? Are the experiments, simulations, or analyses technically sound and replicable?
- Clarity and Presentation: Is the manuscript well-written, clearly organized, and logically structured? Are the figures, tables, and supplementary materials clear and relevant?
- Impact and Relevance: Does the work have a significant impact on the field? Is it relevant to the journal's scope and readership?
- Literature Review: Does the manuscript adequately cite relevant prior work? Is the literature review comprehensive and up-to-date?
Structuring Your Review
To provide the most effective feedback, please structure your review into two parts:
1. Confidential Comments to the Editor: This section is for your private feedback to the editor. Include your overall assessment and any concerns about potential ethical issues (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication).
2. Comments to the Author: This is the core of your review. Be constructive and specific. Start with a summary of the work and your main impressions. Then, provide detailed, numbered comments for major and minor revisions. Frame your feedback to help the authors improve their manuscript, even if you recommend rejection.
Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest
Manuscripts are confidential documents. Do not share them or discuss their content. If you have a potential conflict of interest (e.g., recent collaboration with the author, direct competition), please decline the review and inform the editor. For more, see our Reviewer Ethics page.
Becoming a Reviewer
Interested in joining our reviewer community? Visit our Become a Reviewer page to apply.