All manuscripts submitted to Red Flower Publications journals are subject to peer review by double anonymous (formerly known as double blind). Both the author and the reviewer's identity are kept away from each other. We believe that the use of anonymous peer reviewers is the best way to obtain an honest opinion on the paper. Red Flower Publications requires peer-reviewers not to contact authors directly.
Please note:
Peer review is a confidential process. This is a personal, individual invitation - if you want to ask colleagues to review this paper, you must first contact us.
Comments on peer review can only be accepted online through our review system. We cannot accept downloaded manuscript files you have not edited or annotated in any way.
Your review should provide a broader objective critical evaluation of the paper.
Before agreeing to review for a journal, consider the following:
How should you submit your review? RFP asks the reviewer to use structured peer review evaluation forms.
Do you have conflicts of interest? If so, you can decline to do so by using the link provided in the evaluation invitation.
Can you complete the review within the time allocated? The RFP requires reviewers to submit comments for review within 15 days of accepting the invitation for review. If you are unable to meet the deadline, please contact the editorial team with a request for extension.
Research the journal
Visit the website of the journal to understand the content and style of the journal. This will help you decide whether the paper you are reviewing is appropriate for the journal or not.
The main factors on which you should provide advice are:
The originality, presentation and relevance of the subject matter of the manuscript for the readers of the journal
The accuracy of the methodology
Evaluate the main strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript; evaluate the statistical power of the study, if any.
First read-through
Is it clear what the authors want to communicate and what direction they should follow in the manuscript?
Reporting original research or another type of article? How to change your report?
What contribution does the paper make to the field of study?
Is the manuscript original?
Is the overall study design and approach appropriate?
Are you concerned about the language? Are revisions needed to make it possible to review?
RFP requires the reviewer to use the peer review evaluation form provided. More information is available in the user manual.
Provide detailed comments
Your peer review should provide objective critical evaluation of the technical aspects of the paper. Comments should be constructive suggestions, seeking clarification on any unclear issues, and requesting further development.
Provide recommendations on how the author can improve clarity, succinctness and presentation quality.
Verify whether you think the topic of the paper is interesting enough to justify its length. If you recommend a shortening, show specific areas that you think it is necessary.
It is not the reviewer’s job to edit English documents, but it is helpful if you suggest how to correct English when the technical meaning is unclear.
All major revisions requested should be clearly described. Minor revisions should also be mentioned when the peer reviewer feels that they improve the clarity and purpose of the manuscript.
A referee may not agree with the author's opinion, but should allow it to remain there, provided theirs evidence supports it.
Remember that authors will welcome constructive feedback and constructive criticism.
Criticism is not always easy to maintain, while being sensitive to the author. The comments should be carefully drafted, so that the author understands the steps to improve the paper. Avoid general or vague statements and negative comments that are not relevant or constructive.
Here are examples of commenting on how to provide feedback on an author's work.
If any form of misconduct is suspected such as plagiarism, unreported conflicts of interest, or results falsification, these should be expressed directly in Confidential Comments for the Editor-in-Chief of the journal
Make a recommendation
After reading the document and evaluating its quality, you should make a recommendation for the suitability of the manuscript for publication.
Description
Suggested Action
Accept - without further changes
The paper was well written and made a significant contribution to literature. There is no need for improvement.
Revise - with minor changes
Some minor revisions needed.
Revise - with major changes
Some major revisions needed.
Reject - not suitable for revision
The manuscript has major defects that cannot be corrected with a revision.
Reject - not sound/not suitable for publication
Rejection without option to resubmit recommended.
Discretionary revision: An optional revision that improves the overall quality of the manuscript, but does not affect the scientific validity of the study.
Minor revisions: Problems that must be resolved by the author(s) before publication in order to comply with scientific reporting standards or issues that affect clarity.
Major revisions: Major revisions include a lack of ethical consent, conclusions that contradict the results, further experiments that support conclusions (e.g. controls), inflexible numbers and tables, etc.
Final checks – before you submit your report
Have you given constructive feedback and constructive criticism?
Describe your concerns as specific, as many examples as possible.
Have you provided the number of pages and lines in the article to make it easier for authors to respond to their point?
Are your comments constructive and focused on research?
If you were an author, would you understand how to improve the manuscript?
If you were an editor, would comments be detailed enough to help you make a decision?
Have you checked the spelling and grammar of your report?
Have you included your comments in the appropriate place on the online system – that the confidentiality comments of the editors are in the right place – and have answered all the questions?
