Editorials submitted by an Editor-in-Chief are not subject to peer review; those submitted by a Guest Editor are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief instead. All other manuscript types — research articles, reviews, systematic reviews, and commentaries — undergo our standard peer review process, whether submitted to a regular issue or a Special Issue. Every submission first passes through an initial technical assessment by the journal's Managing Editor to confirm compliance with formatting, ethical, and submission requirements before being forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief for editorial evaluation. Where the Editor-in-Chief is themselves an author, the manuscript is handled independently by another senior editor to preserve impartiality.
To safeguard the quality, integrity, and credibility of peer review, all reviewers must meet clearly defined eligibility and professional standards, ensuring each evaluation reflects genuine subject expertise, impartiality, and ethical conduct — in line with COPE's principles and best practices for scholarly publishing.
Reviewers are expected to:
- Hold a current academic or industry affiliation.
- Possess a doctoral degree (PhD or equivalent) in a relevant field, where applicable.
- Demonstrate subject-matter expertise through peer-reviewed publications verifiable via reliable databases.
- Have prior reviewing or editorial experience — preferred, though not mandatory.
- Have no institutional affiliation shared with any of the manuscript's authors.
- Have no conflict of interest with any of the authors.
- Adhere to ethical guidelines, including confidentiality and disclosure of conflicts of interest.
- Commit to providing objective, constructive, and timely reviews.
NexQ Research Consortium is committed to a fair and unbiased peer review process. While subject expertise remains the primary criterion, editors also aim to consider diversity in geography, career stage, institutional background, discipline, and perspective wherever feasible. We believe that a broad range of reviewer backgrounds strengthens the rigor, balance, and integrity of the evaluation process.
Scholarly publishers currently follow a range of peer review models, including single-blind, double-blind, and open review. NexQ Research Consortium follows a single-blind peer review process:
- Reviewers' identities remain confidential and are never disclosed to authors, either during review or after publication.
- Reviewers are aware of the authors' identities throughout the evaluation.
Authors may suggest potential reviewers during manuscript submission; however, suggested reviewers are not automatically assigned. Every recommended reviewer undergoes the same rigorous evaluation as any other candidate — checking expertise, objectivity, and absence of conflicts of interest.
Reviewers who are not selected for the current manuscript may still be considered for future assignments based on their qualifications and availability. Authors are encouraged to disclose any potential conflicts of interest connected to their suggested reviewers.
Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief and editorial team first confirm that the manuscript aligns with the journal's aims and scope, meets the formatting requirements in our Author Guidelines, and complies with our Editorial Policies and Ethical Oversight standards. All supplementary material submitted alongside the manuscript is considered part of the submission: files essential to the results or conclusions are fully peer reviewed, while illustrative or additional files are checked for completeness, accuracy, and ethical compliance.
- Editors-in-Chief typically recommend 3–5 reviewers from the Editorial Board, the Reviewers' Panel, or other qualified scientists in related fields.
- The Editorial Office may also identify additional suitable reviewers from the broader scientific community whose expertise matches the manuscript's subject matter.
- Reviewers recommended by another reviewer or through other channels are screened by the Editorial Office to confirm eligibility and rule out conflicts of interest.
- Reviewers are first contacted with the manuscript title and abstract to confirm availability and subject expertise before reviewing the full text.
- Reviewers may accept, decline, or recommend an alternative reviewer.
- Once accepted, reviewers receive the full manuscript and are expected to submit their report within the given timeline.
- The Editorial Office typically obtains two independent review reports, occasionally requesting a third for a more thorough evaluation.
- All reviewer feedback is carefully weighed by the Editorial Office and Editor-in-Chief to inform the final editorial decision.
Reviewers are expected to comment in detail on each section of the manuscript. They may also share confidential comments with the Editor that are never shown to authors — visible only to the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Office — allowing sensitive feedback to be raised discreetly. If a reviewer identifies an ethical concern or suspected misconduct, they should pause the review immediately and notify the Editorial Office.
A typical review report includes:
- Brief summary: the manuscript's aim, main contributions, and overall strengths.
- General comments: clarity and organisation, language quality, presentation of figures/tables, overall significance and novelty, and fit with the journal's scope.
- Specific comments: accuracy of data and interpretation, methodological issues, logical consistency between results and conclusions, and any gaps, missing controls, or unaddressed questions.
Reviewers assess the manuscript against a structured checklist, covering (among other things) whether it fits the journal's scope, whether figures and references are appropriate and current, whether the study design and methodology are robust, whether ethical and data-availability statements are adequate, whether informed consent is properly documented where human subjects are involved, and whether there are signs of AI-generated content requiring disclosure.
Depending on study type, authors must indicate which reporting guideline they followed, and reviewers verify compliance and flag any deviation:
| Study Type | Recommended Guideline |
|---|---|
| Randomised controlled trials | CONSORT |
| Non-randomised trials | TREND |
| Systematic reviews & meta-analyses | PRISMA |
| Case reports | CARE |
| Observational studies | STROBE |
| Genetic association studies | STREGA |
| Diagnostic accuracy studies | STARD / TRIPOD |
| Qualitative research | COREQ |
| Animal research | ARRIVE |
Authors, editors, and reviewers can also consult the EQUATOR Network to identify the most appropriate checklist for a given study design.
Every review concludes with one of the following recommendations:
Review reports are conveyed to the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor, who extracts key points for the authors. Manuscripts requiring major revisions are re-evaluated by the same reviewers once the revised version is submitted.
Rejection can occur due to either scope or quality concerns. Where a manuscript is found to fall outside a journal's scope, it may be referred to another journal with a more suitable scope, subject to the mutual agreement of both the author and the Editor-in-Chief of the receiving journal.
NexQ Research Consortium recognises the voluntary effort reviewers put into evaluating manuscripts. In appreciation, reviewers receive:
- A formal certificate of acknowledgment.
- Complimentary English-language editing and graphical enhancement services for any future article they publish with us.
Transparency and quality in peer review depend on reviewers remaining completely neutral, with no association with any manuscript author. The Editorial Office takes every reasonable step to ensure invited reviewers have no conflict of interest with the listed authors.
If a handling editor — including the Editor-in-Chief — has a conflict of interest with any author, they are excluded from that manuscript's review process, and the manuscript is reassigned to another suitable editor. Authors are encouraged to disclose potential conflicts at submission, including a list of individuals the Editorial Office should avoid inviting as reviewers. Reviewers, too, must disclose any conflict — even one identified after accepting an invitation — and step back from the review immediately.
Conflicts of interest can take several forms, including:
- A reviewer's personal or institutional link to an author.
- A reviewer's prior co-publications with any of the listed authors.
- Any financial or non-financial conflict between a reviewer and the authors of the proposed manuscript.
Cases involving undisclosed conflicts of interest are addressed in accordance with COPE's recommended protocols.
Because we follow a single-blind model — where reviewers know the authors' identities but remain anonymous themselves — strict confidentiality on the reviewer's side is essential. All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential and must not be shared outside the submission and review process without authorisation.
- Manuscripts under review must be treated as strictly confidential documents.
- Reviewers must not share, distribute, or discuss the manuscript with any third party without prior authorisation from the Editorial Office.
- Reviewers must not use, reproduce, or incorporate any part of the unpublished manuscript — including data, ideas, or findings — into their own work before formal publication.
- Any potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed to the Editorial Office before accepting a review assignment.
- Confidentiality must be maintained both during and after the review process.
- After publication, any reference to the manuscript in a reviewer's own work must be properly cited.
Reviewers are expected to complete their review within 2 weeks of the invitation date. If prior commitments prevent this, they should notify the Editorial Office promptly so an extension can be considered or new reviewers selected.
The average review time from first submission is 3–4 weeks, though this can vary with reviewer availability and manuscript complexity. If delays extend significantly, authors are informed of the reason and may choose to withdraw their manuscript. The Editorial Office aims to process every manuscript efficiently while allowing enough flexibility for a thorough and fair review.
Peer review integrity is essential to trustworthy scholarly publishing. To guard against manipulation, NexQ Research Consortium follows COPE guidelines and carefully verifies potential reviewers before assigning manuscripts.
Manipulation may take the form of fabricated reviewer identities, reviewer accounts controlled by authors or third parties, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or coordinated "review rings." Any suspected case — whether identified during peer review or after publication — is handled according to the relevant COPE protocol.
Reviewer citation manipulation occurs when a reviewer pressures authors to cite the reviewer's own work even where it has no relevance to the manuscript. At the time of submitting a review report, reviewers should recommend only references that are genuinely relevant to the article — this practice undermines the impartiality peer review is meant to protect. Editors follow COPE's guidance whenever a case of citation manipulation is identified.
Interested in becoming a reviewer for NexQ Research Consortium? Submit a registration request through our Reviewer Registration process. Your profile will be evaluated by the relevant Editor, and if it matches the journal's requirements, you'll be assigned manuscripts for review.