For Reviewers

Reviewer Guidelines

Finesse Publishing (FP)

“We sincerely appreciate the valuable time and expertise that scholars contribute when reviewing manuscripts for FP journals. A thorough and fair peer-review process is fundamental to maintaining the quality and credibility of academic publishing.” — FP Editorial Team

1. Peer Review and Editorial Process

Peer review is a critical component of scholarly publishing. It ensures that Finesse Publishing (FP) journals maintain high academic and scientific standards. All manuscripts submitted to FP journals undergo careful and independent evaluation by qualified experts in the relevant field.

After submission, the Managing Editor performs an initial technical check to ensure the manuscript complies with submission requirements. The manuscript is then assigned to an Academic Editor, who conducts a preliminary editorial evaluation and may recommend potential reviewers.

At this stage, the Academic Editor may:

  • Proceed with peer review

  • Reject the manuscript

  • Request revisions before sending it for review

If the manuscript proceeds to peer review, the Editorial Office invites independent reviewers to evaluate the work. Typically, at least two review reports are obtained for each manuscript. Authors may be required to revise their manuscript based on reviewer feedback, and additional rounds of review may occur when necessary.

The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection is made by the Academic Editor, usually the Editor-in-Chief, an Editorial Board Member, or a Guest Editor. Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting and language editing before publication.

2. Reviewer Profile and Responsibilities

Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the reliability and integrity of the scholarly record. They are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, confidentially, and ethically, following widely accepted publication ethics guidelines such as those provided by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).

Reviewers should generally meet the following criteria:

  • Have no conflicts of interest with the authors

  • Not belong to the same institution as the authors

  • Have not co-authored publications with the authors within the past three years

  • Hold a PhD or equivalent academic qualification

  • Have relevant research experience and publication record in the field of the manuscript

  • Be affiliated with a recognized academic or research institution

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Possess the expertise required to evaluate the scientific merit of manuscripts

  • Provide clear, detailed, and constructive review reports

  • Maintain high standards of professional conduct and academic integrity

3. Reviewer Recognition and Benefits

Peer review is a valuable contribution to the research community. FP aims to recognize and support the work of reviewers.

Reviewers for FP journals may receive:

  • Reviewer certificates acknowledging their contribution

  • Eligibility for Outstanding Reviewer recognition

  • Inclusion in the annual acknowledgement of reviewers published by FP journals

  • Opportunities to join the Reviewer Board based on performance and experience

  • The option to record their review activities through platforms such as ORCID or reviewer recognition services

4. Reviewer Board

The Reviewer Board (RB) consists of experienced researchers who actively support FP journals by providing consistent and high-quality peer reviews.

Membership typically lasts one year and may be renewed.

Reviewer Board Members:

  • Are expected to review multiple manuscripts per year

  • May suggest alternative reviewers if they are unable to accept a review invitation

  • Receive an official Reviewer Board certificate

  • May be listed on the journal’s website as members of the Reviewer Board

5. Volunteer Reviewers

FP journals welcome qualified researchers who wish to contribute as Volunteer Reviewers.

Applicants must meet the requirements described in Section 2 (Reviewer Profile and Responsibilities). Applications are reviewed by the Editorial Office to ensure that the applicant’s expertise aligns with the scope of the journal.

Active Volunteer Reviewers may later be invited to join the Reviewer Board, subject to editorial approval.

6. Reviewer Recruitment

Researchers interested in reviewing manuscripts for FP journals may apply through the publisher’s submission and editorial management system. Reviewers may search for manuscripts within their area of expertise and submit a request to review.

The Editorial Office evaluates each application by reviewing the applicant’s academic background, research expertise, and potential conflicts of interest before approving the request.

7. General Guidelines for Reviewers

7.1 Responding to Review Invitations

Manuscripts submitted to FP journals are usually evaluated by two or more independent reviewers.

Invited reviewers should:

  • Accept or decline invitations promptly

  • Suggest alternative reviewers if they cannot accept the invitation

  • Request additional time if necessary to complete the review

7.2 Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any situation that could create a conflict of interest, including:

  • Employment at the same institution as the authors

  • Recent collaboration or co-authorship with the authors

  • Personal or professional relationships with the authors

  • Financial or professional interests related to the research

If a reviewer is uncertain about a potential conflict, they should consult the Editorial Office before accepting the review.

7.3 Confidentiality

FP journals operate under single-blind or double-blind peer review depending on the journal’s policy.

All manuscripts and associated materials must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share or distribute the manuscript or disclose its content before publication.

If reviewers wish to involve a colleague in the review process, they must first obtain approval from the Editorial Office.

7.4 Writing the Review Report

Review reports should be written in clear English and provide constructive feedback that helps authors improve their work.

Reviewers should:

  • Carefully read the entire manuscript, including figures, tables, and supplementary materials

  • Evaluate both the overall scientific contribution and specific sections of the manuscript

  • Provide detailed comments that clearly explain concerns or suggestions

  • Maintain a neutral and respectful tone

Reports should generally include:

  • A brief summary of the manuscript and its main contribution

  • General comments on strengths and weaknesses

  • Specific comments referring to sections, figures, or tables that require improvement

8. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

During the evaluation process, reviewers are asked to assess several aspects of the manuscript:

Novelty
Does the study present original ideas or findings?

Scope
Does the manuscript fit within the scope of the journal?

Significance
Are the results meaningful and appropriately interpreted?

Quality
Is the manuscript clearly written and well organized?

Scientific Soundness
Are the methods appropriate and the analyses reliable?

Reader Interest
Will the findings be of interest to the journal’s readership?

Overall Merit
Does the manuscript contribute to advancing knowledge in the field?

Language Quality
Is the English language clear and understandable?

9. Ethical Standards

Manuscripts submitted to FP journals must follow high standards of research ethics.

Authors must ensure that:

  • The work is original and not previously published

  • All sources are properly cited

  • Research has been conducted according to accepted ethical standards

If reviewers suspect plagiarism, data manipulation, or other forms of misconduct, they should inform the Editorial Office immediately.

10. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers are asked to provide one of the following recommendations:

Accept in Present Form
The manuscript can be published without further changes.

Accept after Minor Revision
Minor corrections are required before publication.

Reconsider after Major Revision
Substantial revisions are necessary before the manuscript can be reconsidered.

Reject
The manuscript contains serious flaws or lacks sufficient contribution to the field.

Reviewer recommendations are confidential and visible only to editors, who make the final decision regarding publication.