This is a guideline for reviewers who voluntarily participate in the peer review process of SC. All of the journal's contents, including commissioned manuscripts, are subject to peer review.

SC adopts double-blind review, which means that the reviewers and authors cannot identify each other’s information.

Peer reviewers’ role is to advise editors and authors on individual manuscripts for revision, acceptance, or rejection. Judgments should be objective, and comments should be lucid. Scientific soundness is the most important value of the journal; therefore, logic and statistical analysis should be considered meticulously. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest. Reviewers should point out relevant published work that is not yet cited. Reviewed articles are managed confidentially. The editorial office holds the final decision, based on reviewers’ recommendations.

We recommend that reviewers base their appraisals on the following questions:

• • Does the article meet the submission criteria (aims, length, scope and presentation) of the journal?
• • Is the methodology of the article accurate?
• • Are research questions clearly formulated?
• • Are the research components well-defined?
• • Are all conclusions justified and supported by the results?
• • What is the quality of the presentation?
• • Is the data presented in an appropriate manner?
• • Is the article clearly structured, using subheadings and suitable signposts?
• • Is the English language level sufficient?
• • Have all the references and sources been presented in the publisher’s house style?
• • Does the article have the highest level of scientific soundness?
• • Is the research performed in accordance with the highest technical standards?
• • Are the data robust enough to draw conclusions?
• • Is the article well structured and the argument coherently formulated?
• • Are the references to other scholarly works sufficient and complete?
• • Is the article free of fraud, plagiarism or any other unethical behavior?
• • Is the research relevant?
• • Is the same information already published before, either by the same author or by another scientist?
• • Are the article’s findings and argument novel and is there an overall benefit of publishing this work?

Reviewers should use appropriate language in addressing your comments to the author and carefully construct their comments so that the authors understand fully what to improve. Generalized and vague statements should be avoided, along with negative comments that are not supported with arguments. The editorial office never edits reviewer comments and thus we ask reviewers to use appropriate language. SC requires that reviewers give suggestions to the authors on how to improve clarity, succinctness and overall quality of the manuscript particularly in the case of required revisions.

Reviewers are usually invited by the editorial office or recommended by authors. Should anyone want to serve voluntarily, please contact the editorial office. Reviewers recommended by the authors will usually be invited to review corresponding manuscripts. Authors may recommend reviewers from the same institute. We recommend that they not decline the invitation to review solely for the reason that the authors are acquaintances or from the same institution. We ask reviewers to provide review reports in a timely manner, in order to help the journal to provide a high-quality publishing service that benefits the global scientific community. Please contact the editorial office if you need an extension on your review report.

Reviewers should never share the content of the manuscript, including the abstract, with someone else. Double-blind peer review is a confidential process in which both the author and the reviewer should be careful to keep the content confidential.

Reviewers can request the certificate of review from the editorial office. For appreciation, SC may list reviewers on its website.