Scientific Steps Group

For Reviewers


The review process is an important aspect of the publication process of an article. It helps an editor in making decision on an article and also enables the author to improve the manuscript.


Reviewers’ Benefits


Reviewing is often an unseen and unrewarded task, despite being crucial. We are striving to recognize the efforts of all our reviewers.

Reviewing for SSG journals brings the following benefits:
• For every manuscript reviewed, the reviewer may receive a discount voucher code entitling them to a reduction in the article processing charge (APC) of a future submission to any SSG journal. The vouchers are linked to the reviewer’s email address and can be applied online during the submission or at any time before the manuscript is accepted. Note that vouchers cannot be used after an invoice has been issued, which occurs at acceptance. If your article is rejected, the voucher can instead be used for your next submission.
• The reviewers receive a personalized reviewer certificate.
• The reviewers are eligible to be considered for the “Outstanding Reviewer Awards”.
• The reviewers are included in the journal’s annual acknowledgment of reviewers if more than 50 reviewers assisted the journal in the previous year.
• Excellent reviewers may be promoted to Reviewer Board Members (subject to approval by the Editor-in-Chief).

Before accepting to review a manuscript reviewers should ensure that:
• The manuscript is within their area of expertise.
• They can dedicate the appropriate time to conduct a critical review of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

We ask reviewers to declare any potential conflicts of interest and email the journal Editorial Office if they are unsure if something constitutes a potential conflict of interest. Possible conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to):

• Reviewer works in the same institute as one of the authors;
• Reviewer is a co-author, collaborator, joint grant holder, or has any other academic link, with any of the authors within the past three years;
• Reviewer has a close personal relationship, rivalry or antipathy to any of the authors;
• Reviewer may in any way gain or lose financially from publication of the paper;
• Reviewer has any other non-financial conflicts of interest (political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, commercial or any other) with any of the authors.

Reviewers should disclose any conflicts of interest that may be perceived as bias for or against the paper or authors.
Please kindly note that if reviewers are asked to assess a manuscript they previously reviewed for another journal, this is not considered to be a conflict of interest. In this case, reviewers should feel free to let the Editorial Office know if the manuscript has been improved or not compared to the previous version.

Reviewers are also recommended to read the relevant descriptions in the Ethical Guidelines For Peer Reviewers by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Declaration of Confidentiality

 SSG journals operate a double-blind peer review. Until the article is published, reviewers should keep the content of the manuscript, including the Abstract, confidential. Reviewers should also be careful not to reveal their identity to the authors, either in their comments or in metadata for reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format.


 ‘The practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own’ Oxford Dictionaries.

We are committed to upholding the integrity of the work we publish. We encourage our authors, editors, and reviewers to refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website. COPE has published a set of Guidelines for Peer Reviewers that we recommend reading prior to beginning a review.



 Reviews should be honest and objective. Reviewers should not be influenced by:

• The origin of the manuscript
• Religious, political or cultural viewpoint of the author.
• Gender, race, ethnicity or citizenry of the author.



 Reviewers should only accept manuscript that they are confident that they can dedicate appropriate time in reviewing. Thus, reviewers should review and return manuscripts in a timely manner.


Reviewers’ recommendation should be either:
• Accept
• Requires minor corrections
• Requires moderate revision
• Requires major revision
• Not suitable for the journal. Submit to another publication such as (suggest a journal):
• Reject

Recommendation should be backed with constructive arguments and facts based on the content of the manuscript.

Reviewer's Guidelines

1. Reviewer Responsibilities:

  • Ensure confidentiality: Treat the manuscript and its content as confidential. Do not disclose or discuss the manuscript with others without permission.
  • Timely response: Notify the editorial office promptly if you are unable to complete the review within the given timeframe.
  • Objective evaluation: Provide an unbiased assessment of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses, focusing on its scientific quality, originality, methodology, and contribution to the field.
  • Constructive feedback: Offer clear and constructive comments to help the authors improve their work. Provide specific suggestions for revisions, if necessary.
  • Ethical considerations: Alert the editor if you suspect any ethical issues, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or conflicts of interest.

2. Review Process:

  • Read the manuscript thoroughly: Familiarize yourself with the content, methodology, results, and references.
  • Organization and structure: Evaluate the manuscript’s clarity, logical flow, and adherence to the journal’s guidelines for structure and formatting.
  • Methodology and results: Assess the appropriateness of the research design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Ensure that the results are supported by the data presented.
  • Literature review and references: Evaluate the adequacy and relevance of the cited literature, ensuring that appropriate references are included.
  • Ethical considerations: Check for any potential ethical issues, such as inadequate acknowledgment of previous work, conflicts of interest, or violation of ethical guidelines.
  • Recommendations and overall assessment: Provide your recommendation regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript. Support your recommendation with clear justifications and comments to guide the authors in revising their work.

3. Reviewer Anonymity:

  • Unless you choose to reveal your identity, the peer review process follows a double-blind system, ensuring the confidentiality of both the reviewer and author identities.
  • Avoid any language or comments that may reveal your identity during the review process.

4. Constructive Feedback:

  • Clearly articulate your feedback and suggestions, providing specific examples to support your comments.
  • Be respectful and tactful in your communication, focusing on the scientific content and avoiding personal criticism.

5. Ethical Considerations:

  • Report any concerns about potential ethical violations, such as plagiarism, data falsification, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other ethical misconduct, to the editor.
  • If you suspect that the manuscript may be a substantial duplication or contains previously published work, inform the editor immediately.

6. Timeliness and Communication:

  • Complete the review within the specified timeframe and promptly inform the editorial office if you require an extension.
  • Maintain open and professional communication with the editor, responding to their queries and providing clarifications, if necessary.

7. Confidentiality:

  • Do not use any information from the manuscript for personal gain or discuss the content with others without permission.

8. Continued Professional Development:

  • Stay updated with the latest developments in your field, including emerging research trends, methodologies, and ethical considerations.
  • Engage in continuous learning to enhance your expertise as a reviewer.

Join via the Online System

Scientific Steps Group invites eligible scholars and researchers to join the reviewers Board Panel of our journals.

If you have interests to be an reviewers member for the journals, you could join via the following channel.

Here are the procedures:

Step 1: If you didn’t register before, please create an account first : Register
Step 2: Upload your CV and complete the necessary information and submit.