Review Criteria Guideline

Here is a description of each review criterion to serve as clear and consistent guidelines for reviews:

Reviewer Recommendation

This is your overall assessment of the manuscript. Based on your evaluation, indicate whether you recommend acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection. Your decision should be supported by your detailed comments.

Are the aims, rationale, and objectives clearly explained?

Assess whether the authors have clearly outlined the purpose and importance of the study. Are the research questions or hypotheses well-articulated and relevant within the context of the existing literature?

Are the study design, methodology, and statistical analyses robust?

Evaluate whether the methods used are appropriate and rigorous. Consider if the experimental or analytical approach is well described, justified, and executed, and whether the statistical analysis is sound and reproducible.

Are the data in figures and tables accurate, and thoroughly described in the results section?

Check the accuracy and clarity of the data presented. Figures and tables should be clearly labeled, complete, and accurately reflect the findings described in the text. The results section should thoroughly explain the data without ambiguity.

Are the discussions and conclusions clear, unbiased, and in alignment with the findings?

Review whether the authors interpret their results appropriately, without overstating conclusions or introducing bias. The discussion should integrate the findings within the context of the field, and conclusions should logically follow from the results.

If you are reviewing a revision, have all comments been addressed, and is the manuscript free from new concerns?

When assessing a revised version of a manuscript, confirm whether the authors have sufficiently responded to previous reviewer comments. Note if the revision has resolved earlier concerns without introducing new issues.

The language quality of the manuscript is

Comment on the overall clarity and readability of the manuscript. Is the English language usage appropriate for academic writing? Indicate if the manuscript requires minor editing, moderate language improvement, or professional language revision.

Responding to a Review Invitation

When you receive a review invitation from SustainaTerra, we kindly ask that you respond promptly—ideally within a week—to confirm whether you can accept or decline the invitation. Timely responses help us maintain an efficient editorial process for all authors.

Before accepting, please consider the following:

Expertise: Accept the invitation only if you have sufficient expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. If the topic is outside your field, please decline and, if possible, recommend another qualified reviewer.

Time Commitment: Ensure you can complete the review within the indicated timeframe (two weeks). If you need more time, please communicate this with the editorial office as early as possible.

Conflict of Interest: Do not accept a review request if you have any conflicts of interest with the authors, institutions, or funding sources involved. Examples include recent collaborations, personal relationships, or competing research agendas. If in doubt, disclose any potential conflicts to the editorial office.

Confidentiality: The manuscript and your review must be treated as confidential. Do not share the manuscript with others or discuss its content unless you have explicit permission from the editorial office.

Anonymity: Reviews for SustainaTerra are typically double-blind, meaning your identity is not revealed to the authors. Please do not include identifying details in your comments unless you wish to waive anonymity.

If you agree to review, you are expected to provide a constructive, impartial, and evidence-based assessment of the manuscript. Your feedback is vital in guiding editorial decisions and helping authors improve the quality of their work.

We greatly value your time and expertise in supporting the peer review process.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review invitation. A conflict of interest occurs when a reviewer's ability to provide an objective and unbiased assessment is, or could reasonably be perceived to be, compromised.

Examples include:

Recent or ongoing collaboration with the authors.
Personal or professional relationships with the authors.
Financial or institutional interests related to the subject matter of the manuscript.
Competing research that could be directly affected by the publication of the manuscript.

If you recognize the manuscript or suspect the authors’ identity in a way that creates a potential conflict, please inform the editorial office immediately and decline the review if necessary.

Transparency and integrity are essential in maintaining trust in the peer review process. When in doubt, it is better to disclose any concern to the editors for assessment.