Review Guidelines for Stardom Journal
Structure for Review Reports:
Stardom Journal does not impose a specific structure for review reports, but a suggested format is:
- Summary: Provide a brief overview of the submission.
- Major Issues: Highlight significant concerns or flaws in the manuscript.
- Minor Issues: Address smaller issues that may still need attention.
If a reviewer feels they are ineligible to review the submission, it is highly recommended and appreciated to apologize for accepting the invitation. Review reports should comprehensively critique the submission and consist of more than just a few brief sentences.
Guidance for Reviewers:
Reviewers are encouraged to assist authors in improving their manuscript. Constructive feedback should be given, particularly where revisions are recommended. If reviewers have comments they do not wish authors to see, these can be added to confidential comments to the editor.
Please ensure the English language is checked. If the article requires substantial editing, please notify us, but do not reject it solely based on poor language context.
If rejecting the paper, provide reasons for rejection, major shortcomings, and perhaps suggestions with references to published work on the topic. The review report can be downloaded from the review form.
Confidentiality:
Manuscripts under peer review must be strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscripts or discuss their content with anyone outside the peer review process.
Reviewers may consult with colleagues from their research group on request, ensuring manuscript confidentiality is maintained. Reviewers should first contact Stardom Journal or the Editor in Chief and note the names of the colleague(s) in the ‘Comments to the editor’ section of their report.
Conflicts of Interest:
Reviewers should decline to review a submission when they:
- Have a financial interest in the subject of the work.
- Have previously discussed the manuscript with the authors.
- Feel unable to be objective.
