Thank you for contributing your time and expertise to Cultura Científica. Peer review is essential to maintaining scientific quality, research integrity, and the journal’s mission of strengthening scientific culture through reliable interdisciplinary scholarship.
1) Review model and confidentiality
The journal uses single-blind peer review: reviewers can see author identities; authors do not see reviewer identities.
Treat all manuscripts as confidential documents. Do not share, distribute, or use any unpublished content for personal advantage.
Do not contact authors directly about the manuscript.
2) Before accepting a review
Please accept a review only if you can provide:
Relevant expertise to evaluate the topic and methods,
An objective evaluation without bias,
A review within the expected time frame (normally 14–21 days).
Conflicts of interest
Declare and decline the review if you have any conflict, such as:
recent collaboration with the author(s),
same institution/department (current or very recent),
personal relationships,
financial, legal, or competitive interests.
3) What to evaluate
Reviewers should assess the manuscript’s quality, contribution, and ethical compliance. Key criteria include:
A) Fit and contribution
Does the manuscript fit the journal’s Aims & Scope?
Is the topic meaningful for scientific culture, regional relevance, or wider scholarship?
Does it provide a clear contribution (new results, new synthesis, new method, or new insight)?
B) Originality and novelty
Is the work original and clearly positioned relative to existing literature?
Are claims of novelty accurate and supported?
Are the key references up to date and appropriately cited?
C) Methodology and rigor
Are the research questions/hypotheses clear?
Are methods appropriate, transparent, and reproducible?
Are data and analyses sufficient to support conclusions?
For qualitative work: sampling strategy, validity, reflexivity, and triangulation are clear.
For theoretical work: assumptions, definitions, and proofs/derivations are complete and correct.
For applied/engineering work: experiments, baselines, and performance metrics are justified.
D) Results and interpretation
Are results presented clearly (figures/tables readable, units defined)?
Are interpretations reasonable and not overstated?
Are limitations acknowledged?
E) Structure and writing quality
Is the manuscript logically structured and readable?
Is terminology consistent and defined?
Are abstracts and conclusions aligned with the results?
F) Ethics and transparency
Check whether the manuscript includes (when applicable):
ethics approvals and consent statements (human/animal research),
privacy protections and anonymization of sensitive data,
conflict of interest and funding statements,
data/code availability (or a justified restriction).
4) How to write a high-quality review
A strong review is specific, constructive, and evidence-based.
Recommended structure for your report
Brief summary (3–6 lines): What the paper is about and what it contributes.
Overall evaluation: Strengths + the main concerns affecting validity or clarity.
Major comments (numbered): Substantive issues that must be addressed (methods, missing proofs, incorrect claims, key literature gaps).
Minor comments (numbered): Clarity, typos, formatting, small additions, figure/table improvements.
Recommendation: Choose one (Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject) with 2–4 sentences of justification.
Tone and professionalism
Be respectful and constructive, even when recommending rejection.
Avoid personal language; focus on the work, not the authors.
If you suspect misconduct (plagiarism, fabricated data, manipulated images), do not accuse the authors in the public comments. Instead, note your concerns in confidential comments to the editor.
5) Recommendations (what they mean)
Accept: Strong contribution; only minor editorial corrections needed.
Minor Revision: Solid work; needs small clarifications or limited corrections.
Major Revision: Potentially publishable, but requires significant changes (e.g., deeper analysis, stronger validation, major restructuring).
Reject: Not suitable due to scope mismatch, insufficient rigor, major flaws, or lack of original contribution.
6) Suggested review timelines
Standard review period: 14–21 days
If you need more time, inform the Editorial Office as early as possible.
If you cannot complete the review, please decline promptly so another reviewer can be invited.
7) What happens after you submit your review
The editor evaluates all reports and makes a decision.
You may be invited to re-review a revised manuscript, especially after major revision.
8) Reviewer recognition
Cultura Científica values reviewer contributions. Where possible, the journal may provide:
acknowledgment of reviewer service (without linking you to specific manuscripts),
certificates of reviewing upon request.
9) Contact
For review-related questions, please contact: culturacientifica@revistasjdc.com
