Guidelines for Reviewers
Peer review is the process through which manuscripts submitted to OnBoard Knowledge Journal are evaluated by external subject-matter experts in order to assess their scientific quality, relevance, originality, methodological rigor, ethical soundness, and contribution to the journal’s areas of knowledge.
As a peer-reviewed journal, OnBoard Knowledge Journal subjects all submitted manuscripts to a rigorous editorial and academic evaluation process. The journal follows a double-blind peer review model, which means that neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other’s identities. This model seeks to strengthen confidentiality, impartiality, academic independence, and objectivity throughout the evaluation process.
The detailed editorial workflow and peer review process are described in the corresponding editorial process section of the journal website.
Selection of Reviewers
The Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, or Editorial Committee selects reviewers according to their academic background, research experience, publication record, and expertise in the specific subject area of the manuscript.
The selection criteria for reviewers include:
- Having academic or professional expertise in the field of knowledge addressed by the manuscript.
- Having recent research, publications, technical experience, or recognized professional practice related to the manuscript’s topic.
- Not being part of the journal’s editorial staff involved in the decision-making process for the manuscript.
- Not having institutional, academic, personal, financial, or professional conflicts of interest with the authors, the manuscript, or the editorial decision.
- Being able to complete the review within the established timeframe and in accordance with the journal’s ethical and editorial standards.
By accepting the invitation to review a manuscript, the reviewer declares that there is no conflict of interest and agrees to act according to the journal’s principles of confidentiality, academic integrity, impartiality, and publication ethics.
Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities
Reviewers must treat all manuscripts, supplementary files, data, figures, tables, and editorial communications as strictly confidential documents. The content of the manuscript may not be shared, discussed, copied, used, cited, or distributed before publication without prior authorization from the journal.
Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained during the review process for personal, academic, institutional, professional, or commercial benefit.
If the reviewer identifies any possible ethical concern, such as plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, data manipulation, image alteration, citation manipulation, undeclared conflicts of interest, or any other form of academic misconduct, this must be reported confidentially to the editor.
Reviewers must provide objective, respectful, constructive, and academically grounded comments. Personal criticism of authors is not acceptable.
Evaluation Criteria
The evaluation of manuscripts must consider both the scientific content and the formal quality of the submission. Reviewers are expected to assess the following aspects:
- Originality and relevance of the manuscript.
- Alignment with the focus and scope of OnBoard Knowledge Journal.
- Clarity, coherence, and structure of the title, abstract, keywords, introduction, development, discussion, conclusions, and references.
- Theoretical and conceptual pertinence of the study.
- Currency, quality, and relevance of the cited literature.
- Methodological rigor and adequacy of the research design.
- Consistency between objectives, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions.
- Quality, clarity, and relevance of figures, tables, equations, diagrams, or supplementary materials.
- Correct use of scientific language, terminology, citation style, and academic writing.
- Contribution of the manuscript to the disciplinary, professional, scientific, or technological field.
- Compliance with ethical principles related to research integrity, data use, authorship, and responsible publication.
In addition to identifying weaknesses, reviewers are encouraged to provide specific recommendations that may help authors improve the manuscript.
Evaluation Form
To standardize the peer review process and ensure a comprehensive, transparent, and consistent assessment of all manuscripts, OnBoard Knowledge Journal provides reviewers with an official evaluation form.
The evaluation form is intended to guide reviewers in the analysis of the manuscript’s scientific, methodological, ethical, and editorial quality. Through this form, reviewers may assess aspects such as originality, relevance, clarity, methodological rigor, coherence between objectives and results, quality of references, contribution to the field, ethical compliance, and suitability for publication.
Reviewers must complete the evaluation form through the journal’s OJS platform or by using the format provided by the editorial team, as applicable. The form may include quantitative ratings, qualitative comments, confidential observations for the editor, comments addressed to the authors, and the final recommendation regarding the manuscript.
The completed evaluation form is an essential input for the editorial decision-making process. However, the final decision regarding acceptance, revision, rejection, or publication of the manuscript remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief and/or the Editorial Committee.
Reviewer Recommendations
After completing the evaluation, reviewers must submit their report through the journal’s OJS platform using the corresponding evaluation form. The report should include general comments for the editor, comments for the authors, and one of the following recommendations:
Accepted in its original form:
The manuscript meets the scientific, ethical, editorial, and formal quality criteria required by the journal and may be accepted without modifications.
Accepted with minor revisions:
The manuscript requires minor adjustments that can be addressed by the authors without the need for a new round of peer review. The author will have 8 days to submit the revised version.
Major revisions recommended:
The manuscript requires substantial changes related to content, structure, methodology, analysis, discussion, references, or presentation. In this case, the revised version may be submitted to a new round of evaluation. The author will have 20 days to make the required changes.
Not recommended for publication:
The manuscript does not meet the minimum standards of quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, or editorial suitability required by the journal.
Editorial Decision
The reviewers’ recommendations constitute an essential input for the editorial decision; however, the final decision regarding acceptance, revision, rejection, or publication of the manuscript is the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief and/or the Editorial Committee.
If there is disagreement between reviewers’ recommendations, the editor may request an additional evaluation, consult the Editorial Committee, or make a justified final decision based on the quality, relevance, and suitability of the manuscript.
The author will be notified of the editorial decision through the OJS platform or by email. When revisions are requested, authors must respond to the reviewers’ comments and submit a corrected version of the manuscript within the established deadline.
The acceptance of the manuscript depends on the authors’ adequate response to the reviewers’ and editors’ observations, as well as compliance with the journal’s editorial, ethical, and formal requirements.
Reviewer Conduct
Reviewers should:
- Accept review invitations only when they have sufficient expertise and availability.
- Decline the invitation if they identify any conflict of interest.
- Complete the review within the established deadline.
- Provide clear, constructive, respectful, and evidence-based comments.
- Distinguish between mandatory corrections and optional suggestions.
- Inform the editor of any suspected ethical issue.
- Maintain confidentiality throughout and after the review process.
- Avoid requesting citations to their own work unless they are academically justified and directly relevant to the manuscript.
Recognition of Reviewers
Upon completion of the evaluation process, a certificate will be automatically generated through the OJS platform as evidence of the reviewer’s academic contribution to the journal.
a 