Guidelines for Peer Review

Peer review is central to the integrity and quality of scholarly publishing. ProData relies on expert reviewers to provide constructive, unbiased, and timely evaluations that help ensure the publication of rigorous and ethically sound research. We value your contribution and are committed to supporting a fair, transparent, and inclusive review process.

Reviewer Responsibilities

By accepting a review invitation, you agree to:

• Assess the manuscript critically and constructively
• Maintain confidentiality about the content and the review process
• Disclose any conflicts of interest
• Submit your review by the requested deadline
• Provide clear, respectful, and evidence-based feedback to both the editors and the authors

If you are unable to review or need an extension, please notify the editorial office as soon as possible.

What to Evaluate

When reviewing a manuscript, please consider the following key areas: 

Research Quality & Rigor

• Are the research question and objectives clearly defined?
• Is the methodology sound and appropriate for the research aims?
• Are the results clearly presented and statistically valid?
• Are the conclusions supported by the data? 

Clarity and Structure

• Is the manuscript logically organized and clearly written?
• Are tables, figures, and references appropriately used and formatted? 

Ethical Standards

• Does the manuscript include ethical approvals (e.g., IRB, IACUC) where applicable?
• Are issues related to data sharing, participant consent, or safety adequately addressed?

Confidentiality & Anonymity

ProData operates a single-blind peer review process, where reviewers remain anonymous, but authors’ identities are known to reviewers. As a reviewer, you must:

• Treat all manuscripts and related correspondence as confidential.
• Not share, distribute, or discuss the manuscript with others without prior permission from the journal’s editorial office.
• Not use any information from the manuscript before it is published.

Your identity as a reviewer will not be revealed to the authors without your explicit consent. If you wish to sign your review or participate in an open review process, please inform the handling editor when submitting your comments.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Please decline the invitation to review if:

• You have a financial or personal interest that may bias your review
• You have a close professional or personal relationship with any of the authors
• You have collaborated with the authors in the last 3 years

If you’re unsure, contact the editorial office for guidance.

Review Structure

Please provide your review using the following structure:

• Summary: A brief overview of the manuscript and its main contributions.
• Major Comments: Substantive issues related to methodology, interpretation, or clarity.
• Minor Comments: Specific, technical, or editorial suggestions.
• Recommendation: Select one of the following (actual terms may vary):
  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Use respectful, professional language. Critique the manuscript, not the author.