×

Reviewer Guidelines

Below are comprehensive and elaborated Reviewer Guidelines for the Nepal Journal of Statistics and Data Science. These guidelines ensure quality, fairness, academic integrity, and professionalism in the review process. The peer-review process is the foundation of academic publishing. Reviewers play a crucial role in evaluating the quality, originality, and scientific validity of submitted manuscripts. The following guidelines outline expectations, ethical principles, and detailed steps to ensure thorough, fair, and constructive reviews.

1. Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

1.1 Purpose of Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts to determine:

  • The originality and scholarly value of the research
  • The methodological rigor and scientific validity
  • The clarity, coherence, and completeness of the manuscript
  • Whether the manuscript fits the aims and scope of the journal

1.2 Professional Conduct

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Conduct reviews objectively and professionally
  • Provide constructive feedback
  • Avoid any personal criticism of authors
  • Maintain confidentiality at all times

2. Confidentiality Obligations

  • Manuscripts submitted for review must be treated as confidential documents.
  • Reviewers must not share, discuss, copy, or store the manuscript without permission from the editorial board.
  • Ideas or data obtained through peer review cannot be used for the reviewer’s personal research.
  • Reviewers must delete the manuscript and related files after completing the review.

3. Conflict of Interest Policy

Reviewers must immediately inform the Editorial Board if:

  • They have collaborated with the author(s) within the last five years
  • They have a personal, academic, or financial relationship with the author(s)
  • They feel they cannot provide an unbiased review

If any conflict of interest exists, the reviewer must decline the invitation.

4. Evaluation Criteria

4.1 Originality & Contribution

  • Does the study address a new problem or offer new insights?
  • Is the contribution significant to the field?

4.2 Relevance to Journal Scope

  • Does the topic align with the journal’s aims and disciplines?

4.3 Scientific Rigor & Methodology

  • Are the research methods appropriate and well explained?
  • Is the study reproducible?
  • Are statistical analyses correct and valid?

4.4 Clarity and Quality of Writing

  • Is the manuscript well structured?
  • Is the language clear and academically sound?
  • Are tables, figures, and graphs clear and properly referenced?

4.5 Ethical Compliance

  • Are ethical approvals mentioned (if applicable)?
  • Is plagiarism within acceptable limits?
  • Is AI-generated content within limits?

4.6 Quality of Discussion & Conclusions

  • Are results interpreted logically?
  • Do conclusions align with findings?
  • Are limitations acknowledged?

5. Structure of the Reviewer’s Report

A high-quality review should include:

5.1 Summary of the Manuscript (1–2 paragraphs)

  • The objective of the study
  • Methodology
  • Key findings
  • Overall contribution

5.2 Major Comments

  • Methodological flaws
  • Misinterpretations
  • Missing references
  • Insufficient evidence
  • Weak contributions

5.3 Minor Comments

  • Grammar and language corrections
  • Clarity improvements
  • Formatting issues
  • Citation corrections

5.4 Recommendation

Reviewers must choose one of the following:

  • Accept
  • Accept with Minor Revisions
  • Major Revisions Required
  • Reject

Reasons for the recommendation must be clearly stated.

6. Ethical Standards for Reviewers

Reviewers must:

6.1 Ensure Academic Honesty

  • Avoid plagiarism in reviews
  • Provide evidence-based comments

6.2 Treat Authors with Respect

  • Use professional and respectful language
  • Avoid harsh, abusive, or biased comments
  • Provide suggestions for improvement

6.3 Decline Review If Unqualified

  • If the reviewer lacks expertise in the manuscript’s subject
  • If the reviewer cannot meet the deadline

7. Timelines for Review

  • Standard review period: 2–3 weeks
  • If more time is needed, the reviewer must inform the editor
  • Failure to submit a review on time may delay the publication process

8. Anonymity and Double-Blind Review

  • This journal follows a double-blind peer-review system
  • Authors do not know the identity of reviewers
  • Reviewers do not know the identity of authors
  • Reviewers must avoid comments that could reveal their identity

9. Constructive Feedback Expectations

  • Provide actionable suggestions for improvement
  • Highlight strengths as well as weaknesses
  • Offer alternative interpretations or recommended analysis methods
  • Suggest relevant literature that authors may have overlooked
  • Constructive criticism helps authors improve their work.

10. Reviewers' Contribution Acknowledgment

  • Certificate of Appreciation (issued annually or per issue)
  • Listing reviewer names in the journal’s acknowledgement section (optional)
  • Considering reviewers for future editorial positions

11. Withdrawal from Review

  • They discover a conflict of interest
  • They feel unqualified to evaluate the manuscript
  • They realize they cannot complete the review in time
  • Notify the editorial board as early as possible.

12. Commitment to Maintaining Journal Quality

  • Only high-quality, original, and ethical research is recommended
  • Unethical, plagiarized, or poorly conducted research is rejected
  • Articles that require improvement are guided constructively
  • Their contribution directly influences the journal’s academic reputation and indexing potential

13. Post-Review Responsibilities

  • The reviewer must not retain manuscript files
  • The reviewer must not contact the author directly
  • All communication must strictly go through the editorial office

14. Optional Additional Responsibilities

  • Review revised versions of the same manuscript
  • Provide suggestions for improving the review process
  • Recommend external reviewers for specialized topics