Reviewer Guidelines

REVIEWER GUIDELINES — EUROPEAN DATA SCIENCE JOURNAL (EDSJ)

 

INTRODUCTION AND THANK YOU

 

The European Data Science Journal (EDSJ) depends on the expertise, time, and dedication of its peer reviewers to maintain the highest standards of published research. We are deeply grateful to all reviewers who contribute to the quality and integrity of EDSJ. Peer review is the foundation of credible scientific publishing, and your contribution to this process is both valued and essential.

 

HOW TO ACCEPT OR DECLINE AN INVITATION

 

When you receive a peer review invitation by email, you will be given a deadline to accept or decline and a link to the manuscript information. Please respond to review invitations within 5 days. If you are unable to review the manuscript within the required timeframe, or if a conflict of interest exists, please decline promptly so that an alternative reviewer can be identified. If possible, please suggest the names of one or two colleagues who may be qualified to review the manuscript.

 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATION

 

You must decline a review invitation if any of the following apply:

— You are currently collaborating with any of the authors on an ongoing project

— You have co-authored a publication with any of the authors in the past three years

— You are in a direct supervisory or subordinate relationship with any of the authors

— You have a financial or personal interest in the outcome of the review

— You work at the same institution as any of the named authors

— For any other reason that would compromise your ability to provide an objective, unbiased review

 

If you are uncertain whether a conflict of interest exists, contact the editorial office before accepting the invitation.

 

CONFIDENTIALITY REQUIREMENTS

 

All manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents. As a reviewer, you must:

— Not share, discuss, or disclose the manuscript content to any third party

— Not use information from the manuscript for personal research or advantage before publication

— Not attempt to identify the authors of a manuscript

— Destroy or delete all copies of the manuscript after submitting your review

— Not retain the manuscript after the review process is complete

 

Breach of confidentiality is a serious violation of publication ethics and will be reported to the reviewer's institution where appropriate.

 

REVIEW TIMEFRAME

 

Reviewers are typically asked to complete their review within 21 days of accepting the invitation. If you require an extension, please notify the editorial office as soon as possible at [YOUR-EDITORIAL-EMAIL]. EDSJ aims to maintain rapid turnaround for authors, and timely reviews are essential to this commitment.

 

HOW TO WRITE A GOOD REVIEW

 

A high-quality review is objective, constructive, specific, and evidence-based. Your review should help the editors make a fair decision and help the authors improve their work. A good review:

— Addresses the scientific content and methodology, not the authors' identities or writing style

— Identifies specific strengths of the manuscript

— Identifies specific weaknesses, with reference to particular sections, paragraphs, or figures

— Provides constructive suggestions for improvement rather than simply listing deficiencies

— Is written in a professional and respectful tone

— Does not recommend acceptance or rejection solely on the basis of whether the findings confirm or challenge existing knowledge

 

REVIEW CRITERIA

 

Originality and Novelty — Does the manuscript make a new contribution to the field?

Scientific Rigour — Is the methodology sound, appropriate, and sufficiently described?

Relevance to EDSJ Scope — Does the manuscript fall within data science, AI, analytics, or related fields?

Quality of Results and Discussion — Are results clearly presented and correctly interpreted?

Clarity and Readability — Is the manuscript well-written, logically structured, and free of errors?

Quality of References — Are citations relevant, current, and formatted correctly?

Ethical Compliance — Are appropriate ethical standards declared?

Abstract and Keywords Quality — Does the abstract accurately summarise the work? Are keywords appropriate (5-8 only)?

 

STRUCTURED REVIEW REPORT

 

Please structure your review report as follows:

 

SUMMARY

Provide a 3-5 sentence summary of the manuscript's aims, methods, and main findings in your own words.

 

MAJOR CONCERNS

List any major scientific, methodological, or ethical concerns that must be addressed before the manuscript can be accepted. Number each concern and reference the relevant section or page.

 

MINOR CONCERNS

List any minor concerns or suggestions such as unclear sentences, figures needing improvement, or missing references.

 

COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC SECTIONS

Provide section-by-section or line-by-line comments where useful.

 

RECOMMENDATION

State your overall recommendation from the options below.

 

WHAT TO RECOMMEND AND WHEN

 

Accept as is — The manuscript is of high quality with no or only trivial corrections needed.

 

Minor Revision — The manuscript is acceptable in principle but requires minor corrections that the authors can address without further review.

 

Major Revision — The manuscript has significant weaknesses that require substantial revision and re-review before acceptance can be considered.

 

Reject — The manuscript has fundamental flaws that cannot be corrected through revision, falls outside journal scope, or fails to make a sufficient contribution to the field.

 

ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS

 

As a reviewer, you are expected to:

— Review manuscripts in a timely manner

— Declare conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment

— Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript

— Provide an objective, unbiased, and constructive review

— Alert the editor if you suspect any ethical misconduct in the manuscript such as plagiarism, fabricated data, or undeclared conflicts of interest

— Not attempt to unduly influence the outcome of the review for personal gain

 

RECOGNITION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

 

EDSJ recognises the vital contribution of reviewers to the quality of published research. Reviewers are acknowledged annually on the journal website. Reviewers are encouraged to register their review activity on Publons / Web of Science Reviewer Recognition to receive formal credit. Upon request, the editorial office can provide a formal letter confirming your review activity for EDSJ.

 

HOW TO CONTACT THE EDITORIAL OFFICE

 

For any questions about a manuscript, the review process, or your reviewer account, please contact:

 

European Data Science Journal — Editorial Office

Email: 

Website: https://esa-research.org/index.php/EDSJ

Response time: 3-5 working days