Guide for reviewers

Thank you for dedicating your time and expertise to peer review for TROPHOS. The peer-review process is the cornerstone of our publication’s quality, ensuring that every article we publish is rigorous, valid, and adds value to the scientific community.

1. Volunteer Requirements & Qualifications

To ensure the integrity of our review process, reviewers for TROPHOS must meet the following criteria:

  • Expertise: Hold a PhD (or be an advanced specialist in certain applied fields) and have a proven publication record in the specific domain of the manuscript (e.g., Food Science, Nutrition, Microbiology, or relevant Applied Sciences).

  • Independence: Have no recent collaborations (past 3 years) or current affiliation with the authors.

  • Ethics: Maintain the highest standards of professionalism, objectivity, and confidentiality.

2. Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers must declare any potential Conflict of Interest (CoI) immediately. A CoI exists if you have a personal, financial, or professional relationship with the authors that could bias your judgment.

  • Confidentiality: The manuscript is a privileged communication. Do not share the abstract, data, or your review with anyone else. Do not use the manuscript’s data for your own research before publication.

  • Anonymity: TROPHOS operates a double-blind review process (unless otherwise specified). Ensure your comments to the author do not accidentally reveal your identity.

  • Plagiarism Detection: If you suspect plagiarism, fraud, or dual submission, notify the Editorial Office immediately.

3. The Review Process

We ask our reviewers to perform the evaluation in a timely manner (typically within 14–21 days, unless an expedited review is requested).

  1. Invitation: Read the abstract to assess if the topic fits your expertise. Please accept or decline the invitation promptly.

  2. Assessment: Read the full manuscript, focusing on scientific soundness, novelty, and clarity.

  3. Report Submission: Submit your review through the Nusaxis Submission System.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Please assess the manuscript based on the following key pillars:

  • Originality & Significance: Does the paper contribute new knowledge or provide a novel perspective? Is the research question clearly defined and relevant to the scope of Trophos?

  • Methodology: Are the methods described in sufficient detail to allow reproduction? Is the experimental design appropriate and robust? Are statistical analyses correct and clearly explained?

  • Results & Discussion: Are the results presented clearly? Do the data support the conclusions drawn? Does the discussion place the findings in the context of existing literature?

  • Clarity & Presentation: Is the abstract an accurate summary? are the figures and tables clear and necessary? Is the language standard and intelligible?

5. Structure of the Review Report

A high-quality review provides constructive feedback that helps authors improve their work. Your report should follow this structure:

A. Overall Evaluation (Confidential to Editor)

  • Novelty: Is the research question original? Does it fill a gap in the current knowledge?

  • Significance: Are the results important? Will they impact the field?

  • Quality: Is the methodology robust? Are the conclusions supported by the data?

B. Comments for Authors (Visible to Authors)

  • General Summary: Start with a short paragraph summarizing the paper's main contribution and your overall impression.

  • Major Comments: Address critical flaws.

    • Example: "The statistical analysis in Figure 2 is insufficient..." or "The experimental design lacks a negative control..."

  • Minor Comments: Address line-by-line issues, clarification requests, or formatting errors.

    • Example: "Line 45: The citation seems outdated." or "The axis labels in Graph 3 are unclear."

Note: Please focus on scientific content. While pointing out poor English is helpful, you do not need to correct the language line-by-line; our production team handles copyediting.

6. Rating Categories & Recommendation

At the end of your review, you will select one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept: The paper is scientifically sound and requires no further changes.

  • Minor Revisions: The paper is good but needs small corrections (e.g., clarifying a point, adding references).

  • Major Revisions: The paper has potential but requires significant work (e.g., new data analysis, re-writing the discussion, fixing fatal methodological flaws). The paper will likely be sent back to you for re-evaluation.

  • Reject: The paper has serious flaws, lacks novelty, or is out of scope for TROPHOS.

7. Reviewer Benefits

Nusaxis Press values the hard work of our reviewers. To show our appreciation, reviewers for TROPHOS may receive:

  • A personalized Certificate of Reviewing.

  • Public acknowledgement in our annual "Reviewer Recognition" list (with your permission).