Reviewer Guideline

This guide is intended for peer reviewers working with the Journal of Ancient Chinese Arts and Crafts (JACAC), which uses the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. Its purpose is to support a technically correct, ethically sound, and constructive peer review process.

Peer review is a core component of scholarly publishing. Reviewers are expected not only to provide a recommendation but also to deliver feedback that helps improve the scientific quality of the manuscript and supports the editor’s decision-making.

The Role of Reviewers

As a peer reviewer for JACAC, you play a critical role in:

• Maintaining the quality and integrity of published research.
• Providing constructive feedback to help authors improve their work.
• Assisting editors in making informed publication decisions.
• Upholding ethical standards in scholarly publishing.
• Advancing knowledge in the study of ancient Chinese arts and crafts.

1. Review Invitation

1.1. Receiving the Invitation

Review invitations are sent automatically by email through the OJS system. The invitation email typically includes the manuscript title and abstract, the review deadline, a link to access the submission in OJS, and instructions for accepting or declining. Reviewers may access the submission through the email link or by logging in to the journal system directly.

1.2. Checklist Before Accepting

Before accepting a review invitation, consider the following:

• Expertise Match: Is the manuscript within your area of expertise? If not, inform the editor and consider suggesting an alternative reviewer.
• Availability: Can you complete the review within the indicated timeframe (typically 2–4 weeks)? If not, notify the editor as early as possible.
• Conflict of Interest: Do you have any conflicts (personal, institutional, financial, or academic) with the authors, their institution, or the research? If yes, inform the editor and decline.
• Workload: Do you have the capacity to provide a thorough, high-quality review given your current commitments?

1.3. Conflicts of Interest

You should decline the review if you:

• Have collaborated with any author in the past 3 years.
• Are from the same institution as any author.
• Have a personal or professional relationship with any author.
• Have financial interests related to the research.
• Have strong personal views that would prevent objective evaluation.
• Are aware of the authors’ identity in ways that would compromise the double-blind process.

When in doubt about a potential conflict, contact the editor for guidance.

2. Accessing Assigned Submissions

After logging in to the JACAC OJS system, navigate to your Dashboard. Assigned submissions appear in the Review Queue. Click View to open the submission and access the title, abstract, keywords, files, and review schedule.

3. Accepting or Declining the Review

To Accept:

1. Review the submission title, abstract, and keywords.
2. Confirm the review deadline and that you can meet it.
3. Read and agree to the reviewer policy.
4. Click Accept Review.

To Decline:

1. Click Decline Review Request.
2. Optionally provide a reason for declining.
3. If possible, suggest an alternative reviewer.

Note: Some journals restrict file downloads until the review is formally accepted to maintain confidentiality.

4. Downloading and Reviewing Files

After accepting the review, download the manuscript file and any supplementary files. Review the author guidelines to understand journal requirements. Note the review deadline displayed in the system.

Downloaded files must be used strictly for review purposes and must not be:

• Shared with colleagues or students.
• Discussed publicly or on social media.
• Used for your own research without permission.
• Retained after the review is completed.

5. Review Criteria

5.1. Originality and Contribution

• Does the work add significant value to the field of ancient Chinese arts and crafts?
• Does it address a clear research gap?
• Are the findings novel or do they provide new insights?
• Is the theoretical or practical contribution clearly articulated?

5.2. Title and Abstract

• Is the title clear, accurate, and concise (maximum 20 words)?
• Does the abstract effectively summarize the study (approximately 300 words)?
• Are the research objectives, methods, key findings, and conclusions evident?
• Are keywords appropriate and reflective of the content (4–6 keywords)?

5.3. Literature Review

• Is the literature review comprehensive and up-to-date?
• Does it establish the research context and justify the study?
• Are key theories and previous research appropriately cited?
• Is the research gap clearly identified?
• Are citations formatted according to the Chicago Manual of Style?

5.4. Methodology

• Are the research methods appropriate for the research questions?
• Is the methodology clearly described and reproducible?
• Are data collection and analysis procedures adequately explained?
• Is the sample size or data scope appropriate?
• Are limitations of the methodology acknowledged?

5.5. Results and Discussion

• Are results presented clearly and logically?
• Are findings consistent with the data presented?
• Are tables and figures necessary, clear, and properly labeled?
• Is the discussion well-reasoned and supported by results?
• Are findings interpreted in relation to existing literature?

5.6. Conclusions

• Do conclusions logically follow from the results?
• Are the main contributions clearly stated?
• Are limitations acknowledged?
• Are directions for future research suggested?

5.7. Scope Fit

• Does the manuscript align with JACAC’s aims and scope?
• Is it relevant to the study of ancient Chinese arts and crafts?
• Would it interest the journal’s readership?

5.8. Writing and Presentation

• Is the language clear and grammatically correct (American English)?
• Is the manuscript well-organized with logical flow?
• Are technical terms properly defined?
• Are tables and figures of high quality and properly formatted?
• Does the manuscript follow JACAC’s writing rules and style guidelines?

5.9. Ethical Considerations

• Are there any ethical concerns (plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation)?
• Is ethical approval mentioned where relevant?
• Are conflicts of interest appropriately declared?
• Are funding sources disclosed?
• Is AI use (if any) properly disclosed?

5.10. References

• Are references comprehensive and appropriate (minimum 20 for research articles)?
• Are they formatted according to the Chicago Manual of Style?
• Are DOIs included where available?
• Are all cited works listed in references and vice versa?

6. Writing Review Comments

6.1. Comments to the Author

This section is visible to authors. Your comments should be constructive, specific, actionable, balanced, respectful, and objective.

Structure your comments as follows:

• Summary: Begin with a brief overview of the manuscript’s main contribution and your overall assessment.
• Major Comments: List significant issues that must be addressed, such as methodological concerns, unclear research questions, inadequate literature review, or unsupported conclusions.
• Minor Comments: List smaller issues that would improve the manuscript, such as language improvements, formatting issues, or missing references.

6.2. Comments to the Editor

This section is visible only to the editor and may include confidential concerns about ethical issues, scope fit, explanations of your recommendation, or notes about limitations of your expertise. Do not include content here that should be in the Comments to Author section.

7. Uploading Annotated Files

If you make comments, tracked changes, or annotations directly on the manuscript file, save the annotated file and upload it to the OJS system using the Upload File or Reviewer Files section. Verify that the file has been successfully uploaded. If the annotated file is not uploaded to the system, editors and authors will not see your detailed feedback.

8. Recommendation

At the end of the review, select one of the following recommendations:

• Accept Submission: The manuscript is publishable in its current form with only minor editorial corrections.
• Revisions Required: The manuscript requires revisions before acceptance. The revised version should be re-reviewed.
• Resubmit for Review: Significant revisions are needed. The manuscript requires another full review after revision.
• Resubmit Elsewhere: The manuscript does not fit the journal’s scope or standards but might be suitable for another journal.
• Decline Submission: The manuscript has fundamental flaws that cannot be corrected through revision.

Ensure your recommendation is consistent with your written comments.

9. Timeline and Time Management

The review deadline is typically 2–4 weeks from the date of invitation. Meeting deadlines is important to maintain the editorial workflow and support timely publication. If you cannot meet the deadline, inform the editor as soon as possible and request an extension if appropriate.

10. Ethics and Confidentiality

10.1. Confidentiality

Manuscript content is strictly confidential. You must not share the manuscript with anyone, discuss it publicly, present or use the ideas before publication, retain copies after completing the review, or use the content in your own research without permission. Confidentiality obligations continue after the review is completed.

10.2. Ethical Concerns

If you suspect ethical issues such as plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, duplicate publication, or undisclosed conflicts of interest, report to the editor immediately in the Comments to Editor section. Do not mention ethical concerns in Comments to Author, contact the authors directly, attempt to investigate yourself, or share your suspicions with others. The editor will handle the investigation according to COPE guidelines.

10.3. Maintaining Objectivity

Provide fair, unbiased reviews based on scientific merit. Do not let personal relationships, institutional affiliations, or ideological differences influence your evaluation. Recognize that different approaches and perspectives are valid. Do not penalize authors for not citing your own work.

11. Submitting Your Review

Before submitting your review in the OJS system, review your comments for clarity, tone, and completeness. Ensure you have uploaded any annotated files. Verify your recommendation matches your comments. After submission, you cannot edit your review; if changes are needed, contact the editor immediately.

12. After Submitting Your Review

The editor will read your review along with other reviewers’ comments and make a publication decision. Authors receive reviewer comments (except Comments to Editor). You may be asked to review a revised version if major revisions were required. When reviewing revisions, focus on whether previous concerns were addressed and acknowledge improvements.

13. Recognition

JACAC values the essential contributions of peer reviewers. Recognition includes:

• Annual acknowledgment of reviewers on the journal website (with consent).
• Reviewer certificates available upon request.
• Contribution to the advancement of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer Checklist

Before submitting your review, confirm the following:

• Expertise Match: The manuscript falls within my area of expertise.
• Availability: I can complete the review within the specified timeframe.
• Conflict of Interest: I have no conflicts of interest related to the manuscript.
• Review Acceptance: I have formally accepted the review request in OJS.
• File Access: I have downloaded and reviewed the manuscript and supplementary files.
• Scientific Evaluation: I have evaluated originality, methodology, results, discussion, and scope fit.
• Comments to Authors: I have provided constructive, clear, and actionable feedback.
• Comments to the Editor: I have added confidential notes where necessary.
• Annotated File Upload: If I annotated the manuscript file, I have uploaded it to the system.
• Recommendation Consistency: My recommendation is consistent with my written comments.
• Deadline Compliance: I have submitted within the deadline or informed the editor of any delay.
• Confidentiality: I have maintained confidentiality throughout the review process.
• Objectivity: I have provided an unbiased evaluation based on scientific merit.

Contact for Reviewers

Editorial Office Email: jacac@michelangelo-scholar.com

For OJS system issues, please get in touch with the editorial office.

JACAC deeply appreciates the time and expertise that reviewers contribute to the peer review process. Your careful, constructive reviews help advance knowledge of ancient Chinese arts and crafts. Thank you for your service to the academic community.

Related Resources

• Ethical Principles and Publication Policy
• Plagiarism Policy
• Writing Rules
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): https://publicationethics.org