Reviewer Guidelines and Ethical Responsibilities

1. Purpose

This guideline is a practical webpage for reviewers invited by Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science (HCMCOUJS). It explains reviewer expectations, ethical duties, review structure, tone, confidentiality, AI restrictions, citation ethics, conflicts of interest and timelines.

2. Before Accepting a Review

Before accepting, reviewers should confirm that they:

  • have relevant expertise;
  • have sufficient time;
  • have no conflict of interest;
  • can maintain confidentiality;
  • can provide an independent and constructive review;
  • agree to follow HCMCOUJS policies.

If any condition is not met, the reviewer should decline promptly.

3. Reviewer Declaration

By accepting a review, the reviewer confirms:

  1. I have no actual or potential conflict of interest.
  2. I will keep the manuscript confidential.
  3. I will not use the manuscript for personal benefit.
  4. I will not upload the manuscript to unauthorized AI tools.
  5. I will provide objective, respectful and evidence-based comments.

4. Recommended Review Structure

Reviewer reports should normally address:

  1. scope and journal fit;
  2. title, abstract and keywords;
  3. originality and scholarly contribution;
  4. literature review and theoretical framework;
  5. research questions, objectives or hypotheses;
  6. methodology, data and research design;
  7. analysis, results and interpretation;
  8. discussion, implications and limitations;
  9. ethics, data transparency and AI disclosure;
  10. language, structure and presentation;
  11. recommendation.

5. Review Tone

Reviewers must use a professional, respectful and constructive tone.

Reviewers should avoid:

  • personal attacks;
  • discriminatory remarks;
  • sarcastic language;
  • unsupported claims;
  • hostile or humiliating comments.

6. Confidentiality

Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript;
  • contact the authors;
  • disclose review content;
  • reveal their identity in double-blind review;
  • use unpublished information;
  • keep unnecessary copies after review.

7. AI Restrictions

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, data, figures, tables, code or review comments to public AI tools or unauthorized third-party systems.

AI must not replace reviewer expertise, judgment or responsibility.

If permitted tools are used, reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness and integrity of their comments.

8. Citation Ethics

Reviewers may recommend additional citations only when they are directly relevant and necessary.

Reviewers must not:

  • coerce authors to cite the reviewer’s work unnecessarily;
  • require irrelevant journal self-citations;
  • promote citation cartels;
  • inflate citations for personal or journal metrics.

9. Timeline

Reviewers are expected to:

  • respond to the invitation within 5 working days;
  • submit Round 1 review within 21 working days;
  • submit re-review within 14 working days;
  • request extension as early as possible if needed.