Guide for Reviewers

Peer Review Guidelines at Combinatorial Press

Peer review at Combinatorial Press is a thorough evaluation that goes beyond brief feedback, emphasizing constructive engagement. Though not strictly structured, we suggest the following format for reviewer reports:

1. Summary
2. Identification of Major Issues
3. Addressing Minor Issues

Our commitment to constructive engagement encourages reviewers to assist authors in enhancing their manuscripts. The report should offer insightful analysis, particularly when suggesting revisions. If there are comments intended only for the editorial team’s eyes, they can be included in the confidential section for the Academic Editor’s consideration.

While disciplinary expectations vary, certain fundamental aspects should guide reviewers in their critique:

• Validity of research questions
• Adequacy of the sample size
• Verification of ethical approval and consent, ensuring ethical research conduct
• Appropriateness of methods and study design in addressing the research question
• Presence of appropriate controls in experiments
• Sufficiency of detail in reporting methods, equipment, and materials for reproducibility
• Appropriateness and accurate reporting of statistical tests
• Clarity and accuracy of figures and tables in representing results
• Discussion of previous research, with comparisons to current results
• Appropriate use of citations, avoiding undue self-referencing or insufficient support
• Alignment of results with conclusions
• Acknowledgment of limitations in the research
• Ensuring the abstract provides an unbiased summary of the research and results
• Clarity and comprehensibility of language used

To facilitate a timely review process, reviewers are urged to submit reports through the online system by the agreed-upon deadline. Concerns about meeting deadlines should be promptly communicated to Combinatorial Press for alternative arrangements.

Reviewers are encouraged to maintain a focus on objectively evaluating scientific aspects, including methodological robustness and the alignment of conclusions with results. At the review’s conclusion, reviewers are requested to recommend one of the following actions:

1. Accept
2. Accept after Minor Revision
3. Major Revision
4. Reject

It is crucial to note that the ultimate decision rests with the Academic Editor.

Reviewer Checklist

This checklist delineates essential criteria for manuscripts under consideration for publication. Prior to submitting a reviewer report, it is imperative to ensure adherence to each point. Authors must rectify any deficiencies before proceeding with the publication process. While this checklist offers guidance, it is not exhaustive. Reviewers are expected to possess a comprehensive understanding of the manuscript to provide meaningful recommendations. In your report, address concerns and seek clarifications for revisions. Flag more significant issues directly to the editor in the confidential notes section. For matters related to research integrity, promptly inform the managing editor of respective journal for expert guidance.

General Checklist

• Clarity and appropriateness of content.
• Relevance to the journal’s scope.
• Addressal of a valid research question.
• Linguistic suitability for the journal.

Title:

• Clearly indicates the manuscript’s focus.
• Conciseness of the title.

Abstract:

• Self-contained, citation-free, and within 300 words.
• Accurate summary of aims, methods, findings, and conclusions.
• Understandable independently from the full manuscript.

Introduction:

• Summarizes the current state of the topic.
• Clearly defines the study’s aim consistently.

Main Text:

• Clear presentation of main ideas or findings.
• Sufficiently describes the study design and approach, aligning with the research question.
• Inclusion of all essential information supporting the presented findings.
• Ethical conduct of research, especially concerning animals and humans.

Tables and Figures:

• Clear and accurate representation of results.
• Consecutive citation of tables and figures in the text.
• Descriptive titles explaining presented content.

References:

• Inclusion of all key references without omissions.
• Absence of inappropriate citations, ensuring direct support for statements without excess citations to individuals or journals.

The below lists show additional items that could be considered, depending on article type

Research Articles Checklist

• Validation of the research question.
• Appropriateness of methods and study design for addressing the research question.
• Sufficiently detailed reporting of methods, including equipment and materials, for reproducibility.
• Clarity on sample collection/participant recruitment, with transparent presentation and discussion of potential biases.
• Inclusion of appropriate experiment controls.
• Proper use and accurate reporting of statistical tests.
• Clear and accurate presentation of results.
• Data-supported conclusions presented in the context of existing knowledge.
• Transparent presentation and discussion of significant limitations.

Review Articles Checklist

• Balanced and unbiased overview of current understanding and knowledge.
• Inclusion of all key references without omissions.
• Assessment of a wide range of source literature, avoiding focus on specific researchers, including the authors.
• Accurate and precise interpretation and presentation of results from existing publications.

Reporting Guidelines

Authors are not mandated to adhere to specific reporting guidelines by Combinatorial Press; however, reviewers are encouraged to utilize relevant guidelines in their assessments. The EQUATOR Network and FAIRsharing offer clinical and general science guidelines. Recommended guidelines include:

• CONSORT for randomized controlled trials
• TREND for non-randomized trials
• PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses
• CARE for case reports
• STROBE for observational studies
• STREGA for genetic association studies
• SRQR for qualitative studies
• STARD for diagnostic accuracy studies
• ARRIVE for animal experiments

Publication Ethics

 Combinatorial Press upholds the ethical standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewers are encouraged to consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers to ensure adherence to best practices in peer review.

Confidentiality in Peer Review

Reviewers are bound by strict confidentiality regarding manuscripts under peer review. It is imperative that reviewers refrain from sharing or discussing the manuscript content with individuals not involved in the peer review process. In exceptional cases where consultation with colleagues within the same research group is necessary, reviewers should obtain prior approval from  the handling Academic Editor. The names of such colleagues must be disclosed in the ‘Comments to the editor’ section of the review report. Reviewers can remain anonymous to authors unless they voluntarily reveal their identity by signing the review report.

Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review

Reviewers are expected to decline reviewing a submission if they:

• Have a recent publication or ongoing submission with any author.
• Share or recently shared an affiliation with any author.
• Collaborate or have recently collaborated with any author.
• Have a close personal connection to any author.
• Possess a financial interest in the subject matter of the work.
• Feel incapable of maintaining objectivity.

Reviewers are required to disclose any remaining interests in the ‘Confidential’ section of the review form, and such disclosures will be assessed by the editor. Reviewers must also inform whether they have previously discussed the manuscript with the authors. Encouraged to comment on authors’ declared conflicts of interest, reviewers should raise concerns if they believe authors have not fully disclosed relevant financial, institutional, commercial, personal, ideological, or academic interests in their manuscript.