Reviewer Guideline


Manuscript reviewers for AOCV are not only essential in helping to publish accurate, informative, and inventive articles geared toward the interests of the researchers, but also are a great help for making a decision to publish a manuscript or not.

Items to be considered before accepting to review an article:

·       Before you commit, make sure you have sufficient time to meet the four weeks’ deadline for completing the job.

·       In case of declining a review, feel free to provide the contact information of alternative reviewer.

·       By accepting for review, it is essential to treat the received materials as confidential documents, i.e. not to share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor.

·       Since the reviewers serve as mentors to authors, helping to revise an article until each is suitable for publication. Both complimentary and critical comments are vital to the process. The goal is to help authors to identify the strengths of their manuscripts as well as the weaknesses.


The review report

·       Since your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential, your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including your name.

·       Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. Please explain and support your judgement so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. However, indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data.



·       Start out by summarizing the article in your own words. This shows the editor you have read and understood the research.

·       Give your main impressions of the article, including whether it is novel and interesting, whether it has a sufficient impact and adds to the knowledge base.

·       List the manuscript’s strengths and its weaknesses. Clearly state the objectives, contributions, and limitations of the manuscript.

·       Any suggestion that the author includes citations to your (or your associates’) work must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing your citation count or enhancing the visibility of your work (or that of your associates).

·       Point out any journal-specific points – does it adhere to the journal’s standards?

·       In case of suspecting plagiarism, fraud or other ethical concerns, raise your suspicions as much detail as possible with the editor.

·       Give specific comments and suggestions, including about the layout and format, title, abstract, introduction, graphical abstracts and/or highlights, method, statistical errors, results, conclusion/discussion, language and references.

·       Express your overall reaction by providing a list of specific comments, article’s strong points. What needs clarification or more detail? Is it well written?

·       Ensure that the article focuses on its stated objective.

·       Check that sufficient research and evidence to support the author’s claims has been provided.

·       Confirm that the information provided in the article is current, accurate, and consistent.

·       Cite quotations, give page numbers, and make direct reference to the specific areas of the paper on which you are commenting.

·       Offer comments on tables, figures, and diagrams. Is the article too lengthy? Does it contain too many figures?

·       Are the figures relevant to the discussion in the text?

·       Control AOCV overall style, all tables, figures, and diagrams require captions.


Your recommendation

When making a final recommendation on a manuscript, please choose one of the following options:

·       Reject (explain the reasons in the report)

·       Accept without revision (include why you feel it is appropriate for publication)

·       Revise – either major or minor (explain the revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article)


The final decision

Please note that the editor ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the article. The editor will weigh all views and may call for a third opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision. The online editorial system provides reviewers with a notification of the final decision, if the journal has opted in to this function. If this is not applicable for the journal, you can contact the editor to find out whether the article was accepted or rejected.