Guide for reviewers

The Journal of Robotic Systems and Design (JRSD) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and rigor in its peer review process. As a reviewer for our journal, you play a critical role in ensuring the quality, relevance, and scholarly contribution of the research we publish. Your expertise and feedback help authors improve their work, while ensuring that the journal's content remains at the forefront of robotics research and innovation.

This guide aims to provide you with an understanding of your responsibilities as a reviewer, the expectations for your review, and the general process that governs the review of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewer Responsibilities

As a reviewer for JRSD, your primary responsibility is to critically evaluate the submitted manuscript and provide clear, constructive feedback to help authors improve their work. The key responsibilities of reviewers include:

Evaluate the Manuscript

• Scientific Merit: Assess the originality, significance, and technical depth of the research. Does the paper present new insights, models, or designs in the field of robotic systems and design?
• Clarity and Structure: Evaluate the clarity, organization, and logical flow of the manuscript. Are the arguments presented in a coherent and accessible manner?
• Methodology: Review the research methods used in the paper. Are the experimental design, data analysis, and methodologies appropriate for the research questions posed?
• Relevance: Consider the relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s scope. Does the research address important issues or challenges in robotic systems, design, or applications?
• Impact: Assess the potential impact of the research. How does it advance the field of robotics, and what implications does it have for theory, practice, or future research?

Provide Constructive Feedback

• Actionable Suggestions: Provide feedback that is constructive and offers clear suggestions for improvement. Whether a manuscript requires minor revisions or a complete overhaul, it is essential that authors receive feedback that can help them enhance the quality of their work.
• Respect and Professionalism: Your feedback should always be professional, respectful, and constructive. Criticism should be objective and framed in a way that encourages further academic dialogue.
• Specific Comments: Be as specific as possible in your comments. Point out specific sections, equations, or figures that may require clarification, additional analysis, or improvement.

Maintain Confidentiality

• All manuscripts under review are confidential. As a reviewer, you should not share the manuscript with others, nor should you use the knowledge gained through the review process for personal gain.

Evaluation Criteria

While reviewing a manuscript, please consider the following key criteria:

Originality and Innovation

Does the manuscript provide novel contributions to the field of robotic systems and design? Does it present new theoretical insights, innovative design methodologies, or cutting-edge applications?

Technical Accuracy

Are the technical details, algorithms, models, and data analysis methods used in the manuscript sound and accurate? Do they align with the current state-of-the-art in robotics?

Relevance and Scope

Does the manuscript fall within the scope of the journal? Is it relevant to the interests of the journal’s audience, which includes robotics researchers, engineers, and practitioners across various industries?

Clarity and Presentation

Is the manuscript well-written and clearly presented? Are the figures, tables, and references formatted according to the journal’s guidelines? Is the overall presentation of the research accessible and understandable?

Ethical Considerations

Ensure that the manuscript complies with ethical standards in research, including appropriate citations, data integrity, and transparency. Be alert to potential ethical issues such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or conflicts of interest.

Providing Your Review

Once you have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript, you will be asked to provide a recommendation to the editorial team. Your recommendation will help guide the editor in making a final decision on the manuscript. The typical reviewer recommendations are:

• Accept: The manuscript is of high quality, with no or minor revisions required.
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires only minor revisions, which can be addressed without significant rework.
• Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial revisions, but it has the potential to be published once these changes are made.
• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form, either due to significant methodological issues, lack of originality, or failure to meet the journal’s standards.

In your review, please provide a brief summary of the manuscript, followed by a detailed evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses. Clearly outline the revisions you suggest, whether they are related to methodology, content, writing quality, or presentation.

Timeliness

Timeliness is crucial in the review process. Please complete your review within the timeframe set by the editorial team. If for any reason you are unable to meet the deadline or feel that the manuscript is outside your area of expertise, kindly inform the editor as soon as possible so that alternative reviewers can be found.

Conflicts of Interest

Please disclose any conflicts of interest you may have with the manuscript, the authors, or the subject matter. If you have any personal, professional, or financial connections that could be seen as a conflict of interest, it is important that you notify the editor at the beginning of the review process. If necessary, you may be asked to recuse yourself from the review.