For Reviewers
Comprehensive peer reviewer guidelines and evaluation checklist.
Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific integrity. As an evaluator for IJSTS, your critique directly shapes the quality of universal knowledge surrounding multidisciplinary sustainability advancements.
1. Ethical Responsibilities & Confidentiality
- Double-Blind Protocol: reviewers must preserve anonymity. If a manuscript reveals authors' identities, notify the editor immediately.
- Strict Confidentiality: manuscripts and data are privileged communications. Do not disclose, share, or utilize unpublished concepts, models, or data.
- Conflicts of Interest: decline if you have direct competitive, collaborative, or institutional relationships with the authors, or stand to benefit from the outcome.
- Plagiarism & Irregularities: report block matching, similarity above 15%, data fabrication, image manipulation, or uncredited AI use directly to the handling editor.
2. Evaluation Criteria
2.1 Scientific Rigor and Technical Novelty
Verify the methodology is reproducible by an independent expert; mathematical models, formulas, and experimental controls must be robust, presenting authentic scientific advancement.
2.2 Strategic Sustainability Alignment
Submissions must clearly document how outcomes contribute to environmental remediation, circular economic models, or specific UN SDGs. Purely technical papers with no sustainability impact should be flagged for scope rejection.
2.3 Data Presentation, Visuals, and Citations
Graphs and diagrams must be high-resolution (min 300 DPI) and self-explanatory; data arrays as editable matrices; citations in IEEE numbered style.
3. Evaluation Checklist Matrix
| Metric | Assessment Options |
|---|---|
| Sustainability & SDG Relevance | Excellent / Adequate / Deficient |
| Originality & Technical Novelty | High / Medium / Low |
| Methodological Rigor | Robust / Minor Deficiencies / Major Flaws |
| Data & Statistical Soundness | Valid / Needs Re-analysis / Invalid |
| Structural Layout (IMRaD) | Adheres Fully / Needs Revision / Structural Overhaul |
| Citations & Literature Context | Thorough / Minor Omissions / Critically Deficient |
| Language & Composition | Clear / Needs Editing / Needs Extensive Rewrite |
4. Final Recommendation Paths
Accept As Is
Scientifically sound, properly formatted, requires no further intervention.
Minor Revision
Core research valid; needs minor updates or clarity improvements. Re-review typically handled by editor.
Major Revision
Severe flaws in methodology, data gaps, or weak discussion. Requires secondary double-blind review after rework.
Reject
Fatal flaws, lacks novelty, displays plagiarism indicators, or falls outside the journal's scope.