Himalayan Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences

Peer Reviewer Guidelines

A clear, structured guide to help reviewers evaluate manuscripts fairly, confidentially, and constructively supporting high-quality scholarly publishing.

Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing and helps maintain the integrity, quality, and relevance of research published in Himal. J. Basic & Appl. Sci. Reviewers play a critical role in evaluating submitted manuscripts, providing constructive feedback, and assisting the editorial board in decision-making.

General Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Evaluate manuscripts critically, fairly, and constructively.
  • Maintain confidentiality and impartiality throughout the review process.
  • Declare any conflict of interest or inability to review.
  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.
  • Provide clear, evidence-based comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on the following components:

Title and Abstract

  • Is the title concise and informative?
  • Does the abstract accurately summarize the study's purpose, methods, results, and conclusions?

Introduction

  • Is the research problem clearly defined?
  • Is the background information sufficient and up-to-date?
  • Are the objectives or hypotheses stated clearly?

Methodology

  • Are the methods appropriate, valid, and reproducible?
  • Are sample sizes, controls, and statistical analyses clearly described and adequate?
  • Are ethical standards maintained, including approvals where applicable?

Results

  • Are the results clearly presented, with appropriate tables and figures?
  • Are the statistical analyses correct and well explained?
  • Are there any discrepancies or data concerns?

Discussion and Conclusion

  • Are the interpretations logical and supported by the data?
  • Are the results compared with previous work?
  • Are the limitations acknowledged?
  • Is the conclusion aligned with the study’s objectives and findings?

References

  • Are references relevant, recent, and correctly formatted?
  • Are key studies included?

Providing Feedback

Reviewers are encouraged to provide two types of comments:

A. Comments to the Editor
  • Provide a confidential summary of your overall impression.
  • State your recommendation: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
  • Mention any ethical concerns or conflicts of interest.
B. Comments to the Author
  • Be specific, constructive, and respectful.
  • Highlight strengths as well as areas for improvement.
  • Use a numbered list or bullet format for clarity.
  • Refer to line or page numbers where applicable.

Reviewer Conduct & Ethics

  • Confidentiality: Do not share or use any part of the manuscript for personal benefit.
  • Objectivity: Avoid personal criticism and focus on the content.
  • Conflicts of Interest: Disclose any potential bias or competing interests.
  • Plagiarism: Report any signs of plagiarism or unethical practices.

Timelines

  • Reviews should be completed within 1–2 weeks of accepting the invitation.
  • If more time is needed or if you cannot review, notify the editor promptly.

Submitting Your Review

All reviews should be submitted through the journal’s manuscript management system or via the email provided in the review invitation.