Guidelines for Reviewers

1 Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review ensures the scientific and technical quality, relevance and credibility of articles published in Sugar Industry international.

Reviewers are asked to provide an independent, objective and constructive assessment of submitted manuscripts. As the journal serves both researchers and professionals in the international sugar industry, scientific validity, technical accuracy and practical relevance are important considerations.

 

2 General Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly and constructively.
  • Treat manuscripts and associated information as confidential.
  • Disclose potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review.
  • Accept assignments only when they have the necessary expertise.
  • Report suspected plagiarism, data manipulation or other ethical concerns confidentially to the editor.

Reviewers should not demand unnecessary experiments or analyses beyond those needed to support the principal findings.

 

3 Evaluation Criteria

Relevance and Originality

  • Is the subject relevant to the journal’s scope and readership?
  • Does the manuscript provide new knowledge, original findings, valuable technical insights or a meaningful review of existing knowledge?
  • Are the objectives clearly defined?

Scientific and Technical Quality

  • Are the methods and procedures appropriate and sufficiently described?
  • Are the results reliable, plausible and adequately supported by data?
  • Are calculations, units and technical interpretations correct?
  • Are uncertainties and limitations appropriately addressed?
  • Are the conclusions justified by the findings?

Presentation and References

  • Is the manuscript clearly written and logically structured?
  • Are the title, abstract, tables and figures informative and appropriate?
  • Is relevant previous research adequately considered and referenced?
  • Is the manuscript sufficiently concise and understandable?

Industrial Relevance (where applicable)

  • Are operating conditions, process parameters and performance indicators adequately documented?
  • Are practical implications and limitations sufficiently explained?
  • Are technical claims supported by appropriate evidence?
  • Is the manuscript objective rather than predominantly promotional?

Industrial case studies and practical technical contributions should be assessed according to their purpose and available evidence. They need not fulfill all the methodological requirements of fundamental experimental research.

 

4 Review Report

Reviewers should provide a concise, structured report containing:

General Assessment
A brief summary of the manuscript’s contribution, main strengths and principal weaknesses.

Major Comments
Substantive issues affecting scientific validity, technical accuracy, interpretation or conclusions. Comments should be specific and, where possible, refer to relevant sections, figures or tables.

Minor Comments
Suggestions concerning presentation, terminology, clarity, references and other matters that do not fundamentally affect the results.

Confidential Comments to the Editor (optional)
Concerns relevant to the publication decision that should not be communicated directly to the authors.

Comments should be constructive, specific and professionally worded. Reviewers should focus on necessary improvements rather than personal preferences.

 

5 Publication Recommendation

Reviewers should select one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept: Suitable for publication without substantive changes.
  • Minor Revision: Requires limited corrections or clarifications.
  • Major Revision: Requires substantial improvements or additional analysis before publication can be considered.
  • Reject: Does not meet the journal’s standards or contains fundamental deficiencies.

The recommendation should be supported by the reviewer’s comments. The final publication decision rests with the editor.

 

6 Confidentiality and Ethics

Submitted manuscripts must not be shared, distributed or used for purposes other than the review without editorial permission.

Reviewers must disclose any personal, professional or financial interests that could affect their impartiality.

Unpublished manuscripts must not be uploaded to or processed using generative AI tools without explicit permission from the editorial office and appropriate confidentiality safeguards.

Potential ethical concerns should be reported to the editor rather than investigated independently.

 

The editorial office appreciates the time and expertise contributed by reviewers in maintaining the quality of Sugar Industry international.