Applications to Review at SalviaPub We highly value applications from individuals interested in joining our esteemed community of peer reviewers. Regrettably, our application form is presently encountering technical difficulties. We kindly request you to revisit our platform in the coming days to submit your application and express your interest in becoming a reviewer for SalviaPub. Your dedication to the advancement of research is greatly appreciated, and we look forward to welcoming you as a valuable contributor to our peer review process
How to Peer Review for SalviaPub At SalviaPub, we greatly appreciate the valuable contributions of our peer reviewers in maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly research. Your insights and expertise are vital in shaping the scholarly discourse. To ensure a comprehensive and constructive peer review process, we offer the following guidance: Review Report Structure While there isn't a rigid structure required for your review report, we suggest a format that includes the following sections: Summary: A concise overview of your evaluation. Major Issues: Detailed assessment of significant concerns. Minor Issues: Points addressing less critical matters. We encourage reviewers to provide constructive feedback aimed at helping authors enhance their manuscripts, especially when recommending revisions. If you have confidential comments or suggestions not intended for the authors, you can include them in the confidential comments section to be shared with the Academic Editor. Critical Aspects for Review Although specific expectations may vary by discipline, the core aspects that reviewers should critique often include

• Validity of research questions

• Adequacy of sample size

• Ethical considerations and approvals

• Appropriateness of methods and study design

• Proper inclusion of experimental controls

• Clarity and completeness of method descriptions

• Appropriate use and reporting of statistical tests

• Clarity and accuracy of figures and tables

• Incorporation of relevant previous research

• Proper citation practices

• Alignment of results with conclusions

• Acknowledgment of research limitations

• Accuracy of the abstract in summarizing research

• Clarity and readability of language

Meeting Review Deadlines To ensure a timely peer review process, we request that you submit your review reports through our manuscript tracking system on or before the agreed-upon deadline. If you anticipate any difficulties in meeting the deadline, please contact SalviaPub, and we can arrange an alternative schedule. Recommendation Actions At the end of your review, we ask you to recommend one of the following actions: Publish Unaltered Consider after Minor Changes Reject Please note that the final decision will be made by the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. Publish Your Reviews Initiative As part of the Publish Your Reviews initiative, SalviaPub encourages reviewers to consider publishing their reviews, particularly when authors have opted to share their manuscripts as preprints. You can post your reviews on relevant preprint servers or independent online platforms like PreReview. We request that you adhere to ASAPBio's Recommendations for Reviewers and refrain from explicitly mentioning the journal or publisher's name or your publication recommendation to maintain the confidentiality of the peer review process. Reporting Guidelines While SalviaPub does not mandate reporting guidelines for authors, we encourage reviewers to use relevant reporting guidelines to assess submissions. You can find clinical guidelines from the EQUATOR Network and general science guidelines on FAIRsharing. We particularly recommend using guidelines such as:

• CONSORT for randomized controlled trials

• TREND for non-randomized trials

• PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses

• CARE for case reports

• STROBE for observational studies

• STREGA for genetic association studies

• SRQR for qualitative studies

• STARD for diagnostic accuracy studies

• ARRIVE for animal experiments

Publication Ethics SalviaPub is a proud member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). For best practices in peer review, please consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. If you have concerns related to publication ethics, please report them to our Editorial team. Confidentiality Manuscripts under peer review must be treated with strict confidentiality. Reviewers are not permitted to share manuscripts or discuss their content with individuals outside the peer review process. If you need to consult with colleagues within your research group, please ensure manuscript confidentiality and notify SalviaPub or the Academic Editor of their involvement in the 'Comments to the editor' section of your report. Your identity as a reviewer will remain anonymous unless you choose to disclose it by signing the review report. Conflicts of Interest Reviewers should decline to review a submission if they:

• Have recent publications or current submissions with any of the authors

• Share or have recently shared an affiliation with any author

• Collaborate or have recently collaborated with any author

• Have a close personal connection to any author

• Have a financial interest related to the subject of the work

• Feel unable to provide an objective review

Reviewers should declare any remaining interests in the 'Confidential' section of the review form, which will be taken into consideration by the editor. Additionally, reviewers should disclose any prior discussions they've had with the authors and comment on authors' declared conflicts of interest. If you suspect undisclosed conflicts, please report them in your review. Thank you for your dedication to advancing scholarly research through peer review. Your commitment to academic rigor and ethical standards is instrumental in maintaining the quality of publications at SalviaPub.