Information for Reviewers

"We sincerely appreciate the scholars who dedicate their time to reviewing articles submitted to our journals. A thorough peer-review process is fundamental to ensuring the quality of academic publishing."

— The SOAP editorial team

1. Peer Review and Editorial Procedure

Peer review is a vital component of the publishing process, ensuring that SOAP upholds the highest standards for its published papers. All manuscripts submitted to our journals undergo a comprehensive peer-review process by qualified experts.

Upon submission, the Managing Editor will first conduct a technical pre-check. A suitable academic editor will then be assigned to carry out an editorial pre-check. If the peer review continues, the Editorial Office will coordinate the process, ensuring that independent experts provide at least two review reports per manuscript. The final decision rests with an academic editor (Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board Member, or Guest Editor).

2. Reviewers’ Profile and Responsibilities

Criteria for Reviewers

  • No conflicts of interest with any authors.
  • Not affiliated with the same institution as the authors.
  • No publications with the authors in the past three years.
  • Hold a PhD or MD (for medical journals).
  • Have relevant experience and a proven publication record (e.g., Scopus, ORCID).
  • Be experienced scholars in the manuscript's subject area.
  • Hold a recognized academic affiliation.

Expectations

  • Have the expertise needed to evaluate the scientific quality.
  • Provide detailed, high-quality review reports.
  • Remain engaged throughout the peer review process.
  • Uphold professionalism and ethical standards.

3. Reviewers’ Benefits

We strive to acknowledge the efforts of all our reviewers with the following benefits:

  • ✓ APC Discount Vouchers: Receive a discount voucher for future SOAP submissions. Vouchers are cumulative and can be used for APCs or English editing services.
  • ✓ Certification: Receive a personalized reviewer certificate.
  • ✓ Awards & Recognition: Eligible for "Outstanding Reviewer Awards" and annual acknowledgments.
  • ✓ Career Advancement: Potential invitation to join the Reviewer Board.
  • ✓ Web of Science Integration: Automatically add reviewing activity to your Web of Science profile (integrated with ORCID).

4. Reviewer Board (RB)

RB members are experienced researchers who review regularly (at least 6 manuscripts/year). Term is 1 year (renewable).

  • Receive an RB certificate.
  • Publicly acknowledged on the website.
  • Eligible for promotion to Topical Advisory Panel.

5. Volunteer Reviewers

We actively seek volunteers. Applicants must meet the criteria in Section 2.

Interested?
Please submit your application to the editorial office for review.

6. How to Apply for Specific Manuscripts

Both Reviewer Board members and Volunteer Reviewers can apply to review specific papers via the Submission System (OJS):

  1. Go to the "Recruiting Reviewers" section under the "Reviewers Menu".
  2. Search by journal or keyword.
  3. Click "Apply" on a manuscript of interest.

Note: Our internal team will check for conflicts of interest before approval.

7. General Guidelines for Reviewers

7.1 Invitation & 7.2 Conflicts of Interest (COI)

Please accept/decline promptly. Disclose any potential bias, financial gain, or close relationships. Collaboration within the last 3 years counts as a COI. Reviewing the same paper for a different journal previously is not a COI.

7.3 Confidentiality

Manuscript content is confidential. Do not reveal your identity (blind review) unless Open Peer Review is mutually agreed upon at publication.

7.4 Writing Review Reports

IMPORTANT: AI Policy
Reviewers must not use GenAI tools (like ChatGPT) to write review reports. Uploading manuscripts to AI tools violates confidentiality. Such reviews will be discarded.

Reports should include: A brief summary, general comments (weaknesses, methodology), and specific comments (line numbers, inaccuracies). Do not recommend excessive self-citations.

Questions for Research Articles:
  • Is the manuscript clear and well-structured?
  • Is the experimental design appropriate?
  • Are results reproducible?
  • Are figures/tables easy to interpret?
  • Are conclusions supported by evidence?
Questions for Review Articles:
  • Is the review comprehensive and relevant?
  • Does it identify a knowledge gap?
  • Are references recent and relevant?
  • Is there excessive self-citation?

7.5 & 7.6 Evaluation & Recommendations

Reviewers should assess Novelty, Scope, Significance, Quality, Scientific Soundness, and English Language.

Accept in Present Form
No changes required.
Accept after Minor Revisions
Revisions within 5 days.
Major Revisions
Re-submit within 10 days. Max 2 rounds.
Reject
Significant flaws or lack of originality.

7.7 Registered Reports

  • Stage 1: Evaluate hypothesis soundness and methodology feasibility before data collection.
  • Stage 2: Assess if data adequately tests the hypothesis and if approved methods were followed.