Ready to submit?

Start a new submission or continue a submission in progress

Go to submission page Instructions for authors Your submissions
Journal Description Journal History Editorial Team Contact Privacy Statement Copyright Notice
Current Issue Past Issues

Reviewer Guideline

Life Sciences, Technology and Sustainability Education (LSTSE) considers peer review as a fundamental component of scholarly publishing. Reviewers play an important role in maintaining the quality, originality, and integrity of published research by providing independent evaluations of submitted manuscripts. The journal expects reviewers to conduct reviews objectively, professionally, and according to internationally recognized standards of responsible peer review.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, publication record, and suitability with the subject area of the submitted manuscript. Reviewers should provide evaluations that assist editors in making informed decisions and help authors improve the scientific quality, clarity, and contribution of their research.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide a comprehensive and balanced assessment of manuscripts. Reviewer evaluations should focus on the scientific content of the manuscript rather than personal opinions about the authors.

The main responsibilities of reviewers include:

1. Assessing Manuscript Quality

Reviewers should evaluate the overall academic quality of the manuscript, including:

  • Originality and significance of the research topic.
  • Relevance of the manuscript to the aims and scope of LSTSE.
  • Adequacy of the theoretical framework and engagement with relevant literature.
  • Clarity of research objectives, questions, or hypotheses.
  • Appropriateness of research design and methodology.
  • Accuracy and reliability of data analysis.
  • Logical consistency between research findings, discussion, and conclusions.
  • Contribution of the study to scientific knowledge and educational practice.

Reviewers should provide specific comments that explain the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Evaluations should be supported by academic reasoning and evidence rather than personal preferences.

2. Identifying Methodological and Scientific Issues

Reviewers are responsible for examining methodological aspects of submitted manuscripts to ensure that research procedures are appropriate and scientifically justified.

Reviewers should consider:

  • Research design suitability.
  • Sampling strategies and participant selection.
  • Data collection procedures.
  • Validity and reliability of instruments or analytical approaches.
  • Accuracy of statistical procedures or qualitative analysis.
  • Ethical considerations related to research participants.
  • Limitations and potential biases affecting interpretation.

When identifying methodological concerns, reviewers should provide constructive recommendations that enable authors to improve the rigor and transparency of their research.

3. Providing Constructive Improvement Suggestions

Reviewer comments should support authors in strengthening manuscript quality. Reviews should identify areas requiring improvement and provide practical recommendations.

Constructive feedback may address:

  • Improvement of theoretical arguments.
  • Clarification of research methods.
  • Strengthening of literature discussions.
  • Improvement of data presentation.
  • Refinement of interpretations and conclusions.
  • Enhancement of academic writing and manuscript structure.

Reviewers should distinguish between major concerns that affect scientific validity and minor issues related to presentation, language, formatting, or clarity.

4. Maintaining Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, copy, distribute, or use information from submitted manuscripts for personal or professional purposes before publication.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly regarding manuscript evaluation unless authorized by the editorial team. All communication regarding review decisions should be conducted through the official journal management system.

The identity of reviewers is protected according to the journal’s peer review policy. Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the review process and avoid actions that may compromise anonymity.

5. Declaring Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment. A reviewer should decline the invitation if personal, professional, financial, institutional, or academic relationships may influence their objectivity.

Potential conflicts may include:

  • Previous collaboration with manuscript authors.
  • Current institutional relationships.
  • Personal disagreements or competing interests.
  • Direct involvement in related research projects.
  • Financial or professional interests connected to the manuscript.

If a conflict of interest exists, reviewers should inform the editor immediately and withdraw from the review process.

Ethical Principles for Reviewers

Reviewers must conduct evaluations according to principles of fairness, respect, and academic integrity. Reviewers should:

  • Evaluate manuscripts based on scholarly merit.
  • Avoid discriminatory judgments based on author identity, institution, nationality, gender, or academic background.
  • Avoid requesting citations solely to increase personal citation counts or promote specific journals.
  • Identify possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, or ethical concerns.
  • Provide reviews within the agreed timeframe.

Reviewers should notify the editorial team if they identify serious concerns regarding research integrity or publication ethics.

Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Reviewer recommendations serve as important input for editorial decisions. However, final decisions regarding manuscript acceptance, revision, or rejection remain the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief and editorial team.

Possible reviewer recommendations include:

  • Accept without revision.
  • Minor revision required.
  • Major revision required.
  • Reject.

Editors consider reviewer comments, manuscript quality, and journal standards when making final decisions.

Reviewer Recognition

LSTSE appreciates the contribution of reviewers who dedicate their expertise and time to supporting scholarly communication. The journal may provide acknowledgment through reviewer recognition programs while maintaining confidentiality of individual review assignments.

The journal is committed to developing a professional reviewer community that supports rigorous research evaluation and continuous improvement of publication quality.

LSTSE follows internationally recognized peer review principles, including guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) regarding ethical and responsible peer review practices.