1. Purpose

This guidelines establishes the principles, responsibilities, standards, and procedures applicable to reviewers participating in the evaluation of manuscripts submitted to journals published under the Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science (HCMCOUJS).

The Handbook aims to ensure that the peer-review process at HCMCOUJS is conducted independently, objectively, confidentially, fairly, responsibly, and in accordance with internationally recognized standards of publication ethics and best editorial practices, particularly the principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Scopus, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

2. Scope

This Handbook applies to all reviewers invited to evaluate manuscripts submitted to journals published under the HCMCOUJS Publisher, including international journals, Vietnamese-language journals, special issues, thematic issues, conference proceedings, and other scholarly publications managed by HCMCOUJS.

This Handbook shall be implemented in conjunction with the following HCMCOUJS policies and guidelines:

• Publication Ethics and Research Integrity Policy;
• Authorship and Contribution Policy;
• Peer Review Policy;
• Editorial Independence and Editorial Governance Policy;
• AI Governance Policy;
• Correction, Retraction and Post-Publication Policy;
• Research Data Policy;
• Author Guidelines;
• HCMCOUJS Ethics Flowcharts and Editorial Procedures.

3. HCMCOUJS Peer Review Principles

HCMCOUJS adopts a double-blind peer review model. The identities of both authors and reviewers shall remain confidential throughout the peer-review process unless otherwise specified under a journal policy explicitly announced by HCMCOUJS.

The peer-review process at HCMCOUJS is governed by the following principles:

1. Academic independence.
2. Objectivity in evaluation.
3. Fairness toward all authors.
4. Strict confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts.
5. Respect for authors and all participants in the publication process.
6. Evidence-based scholarly evaluation.
7. Non-discrimination on the basis of nationality, gender, academic rank, academic degree, institutional affiliation, scholarly viewpoints, or personal background.
8. No use of information contained in submitted manuscripts for personal benefit.
9. No abuse of the reviewer role to manipulate citations, gain academic advantage, or disadvantage authors.
10. Compliance with the review deadlines established by the Journal.

4. Roles and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play a fundamental role in safeguarding the scientific quality, research integrity, and scholarly value of manuscripts submitted for publication.

Reviewers are expected to assist the Editorial Board in evaluating:

• the manuscript's suitability for the Journal's aims and scope;
• the novelty and originality of the research;
• its theoretical, methodological, empirical, or practical contribution;
• the appropriateness of the research design;
• the reliability of the methodology, data, analyses, and interpretation of findings;
• the adequacy of the discussion and conclusions;
• the overall quality of academic presentation;
• the appropriateness and accuracy of citations and references;
• compliance with research ethics and publication ethics requirements;
• the disclosure of funding, conflicts of interest, research data availability, and the use of artificial intelligence.

Reviewers provide independent scholarly recommendations and do not make the final editorial decision regarding manuscript acceptance or rejection.

The final editorial decision rests with the Handling Editor, the Editor-in-Chief, or the Editorial Board, in accordance with the editorial procedures of HCMCOUJS.

5. Reviewer Selection Criteria

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, publication record, and the relevance of their expertise to the subject matter of the submitted manuscript.

An appropriate reviewer should normally satisfy the following criteria:

1. Possesses expertise directly relevant to the manuscript's subject area.
2. Holds a doctoral degree or an equivalent professional qualification in exceptional circumstances.
3. Has an established publication record relevant to the field under review.
4. Demonstrates the ability to critically evaluate research methodology, data, scholarly arguments, and academic contributions.
5. Has no actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest with the authors, funding organizations, or research subject.
6. Able to complete the review within the required timeframe.
7. Commits to complying with the ethical principles governing peer review at HCMCOUJS.

Where necessary, HCMCOUJS may appoint specialist reviewers with expertise in:

• research methodology;
• statistics;
• research data;
• research ethics;
• artificial intelligence;
• or other specialized technical disciplines.

6. Invitation to Review

Upon receiving an invitation to review, reviewers should carefully consider the manuscript title, abstract, keywords, and research area before deciding whether to accept or decline the invitation.

Reviewers are encouraged to accept an invitation when they:

• possess sufficient subject-matter expertise to evaluate the manuscript;
• have no actual or potential conflict of interest;
• have adequate time to complete the review within the required deadline;
• are able to provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and impartial comments.

Reviewers should decline an invitation when they:

• do not possess adequate expertise in the relevant field;
• have personal, professional, academic, or financial relationships with the author(s);
• are currently collaborating with, or have recently collaborated with, the author(s);
• are engaged in direct academic competition with the author(s);
• are unable to complete the review within the specified timeframe;
• cannot ensure an objective and impartial assessment.

If declining an invitation, reviewers are encouraged, where appropriate, to recommend alternative qualified reviewers. Any recommended reviewer must satisfy the reviewer selection criteria of HCMCOUJS and must not have any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest with the manuscript or its authors.

7. Confidentiality in Peer Review

All manuscripts sent for review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

• share the manuscript with any individual or organization;
• discuss the content of the manuscript with others without the Journal’s permission;
• use the data, ideas, results, images, tables, or arguments in the manuscript for their own research, teaching, consulting, or personal benefit;
• disclose their identity to the authors;
• contact the authors directly about the manuscript;
• upload the manuscript, tables, images, data, or any unpublished content to artificial intelligence tools, online platforms, or third-party services.

The obligation of confidentiality remains in effect even after the review process is completed, the manuscript is rejected, or the article is published.

8. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must fully disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that may affect the objectivity of the evaluation process.

Conflicts of interest may include:

• being affiliated with the same institution as the authors;
• having a supervisory, co-supervisory, mentee, close colleague, or research collaboration relationship with the authors;
• having recent co-publications with the authors;
• having financial, funding, consulting, or commercial interests related to the manuscript;
• having academic competition or personal conflict with the authors;
• having a direct interest in the manuscript being accepted or rejected.

When uncertain whether a situation constitutes a conflict of interest, reviewers must notify the Editorial Board for guidance.

9. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must conduct their evaluation with honesty, fairness, respect, and a constructive spirit.

Reviewers must not:

• make offensive, discriminatory, or unprofessional comments;
• require authors to unnecessarily cite the reviewer’s own works;
• suggest citations intended to boost citation metrics for an individual, research group, journal, or publisher;
• delay the review in order to disadvantage the authors;
• use information in the manuscript to benefit their own research;
• influence the review process with dishonest information;
• ask someone else to conduct the review on their behalf without the Journal’s approval.

All review comments must focus on the academic content of the manuscript, not on the authors personally.

10. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers must not upload the manuscript, images, tables, data, appendices, correspondence, or any unpublished content to generative artificial intelligence tools or large language models.

The use of AI in peer review is acceptable only to a very limited extent, for example:

• checking spelling in comments the reviewer has written themselves;
• improving the grammar or clarity of the review report;
• reformatting the wording of the review report without changing the substance of the evaluation.

In all cases, reviewers remain fully responsible for the content of their review report.

Reviewers must disclose any use of AI tools to assist with language editing in the review report. Any unauthorized use of AI to analyze, summarize, evaluate, or generate review content from an unpublished manuscript is considered a breach of confidentiality and peer review ethics.

11. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

When evaluating a manuscript, reviewers should consider the following criteria:

11.1. Fit and Relevance

• Does the manuscript fit the aim and scope of the Journal?
• Is the topic appropriate for the target readership?
• Does the article contribute to the relevant academic field?

11.2. Novelty and Originality

• Does the study have a clearly defined research problem?
• Is the research question novel or significant?
• Does the article make a new contribution in theory, methodology, data, evidence, or application?

11.3. Theoretical Basis and Literature Review

• Is the literature review comprehensive and up to date?
• Are prior studies critically analyzed?
• Is the research gap clearly identified?
• Are the references appropriate and correctly cited?

11.4. Research Methodology

• Is the research design appropriate for the research question?
• Is the data collection method clearly described?
• Are the sample size, sampling criteria, and research procedure reasonable?
• Is the analytical method appropriate?
• Are the methodological limitations acknowledged?

11.5. Data and Results

• Is the data reliable?
• Are the results presented clearly?
• Are the tables, figures, and charts accurate and necessary?
• Does the analysis support the conclusions?
• Are there any signs of irregularities in the data, images, or results?

11.6. Discussion and Conclusion

• Is the discussion grounded in the research results?
• Do the authors compare their findings with prior studies?
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence?
• Do the authors present the contributions, implications, and limitations?

11.7. Research Ethics and Publication Ethics

Reviewers should be alert to the following issues:

• plagiarism;
• self-plagiarism;
• duplicate publication;
• salami slicing of research results;
• citation manipulation;
• authorship disputes;
• fabricated or falsified data;
• image manipulation;
• undisclosed use of AI;
• lack of required research ethics approval;
• failure to disclose conflicts of interest, funding, or data.

12. Review Report

The review report must be clear, well-structured, well-substantiated, and constructive.

A review report should include:

1. A brief summary of the content and main contribution of the manuscript;
2. General comments on quality, novelty, and relevance;
3. Major comments requiring revision by the authors;
4. Minor comments on presentation, language, references, tables, or formatting;
5. Comments on research ethics, data, AI, and conflicts of interest, if any;
6. An editorial recommendation.

Reviewers should avoid stating a direct recommendation to accept or reject in the comments sent to the authors if the system already provides a separate recommendation field for the Editorial Board.

13. Editorial Recommendations

Upon completing the review, reviewers should provide one of the following editorial recommendations.

13.1. Accept

This recommendation should be made when the manuscript:

• demonstrates high scholarly quality;
• requires no substantial revisions;
• fully satisfies the Journal's academic, ethical, and editorial standards.

13.2. Minor Revision

This recommendation should be made when the manuscript has a clear scholarly contribution but requires only limited revisions, such as:

• improving language or academic writing;
• correcting references or citations;
• revising tables, figures, or formatting;
• clarifying specific arguments or methodological details that do not substantially affect the overall scientific validity of the study.

Minor revisions should not require fundamental changes to the research design, methodology, analyses, or principal conclusions.

13.3. Major Revision

This recommendation should be made when the manuscript demonstrates publication potential but contains substantial deficiencies requiring significant revision before further consideration.

Examples include, but are not limited to:

• weaknesses in the theoretical framework;
• methodological limitations;
• deficiencies in data collection or data analysis;
• insufficient interpretation or discussion of findings;
• weaknesses in the presentation of results;
• incomplete reporting of research procedures;
• major structural or organizational issues.

A recommendation of Major Revision indicates that the manuscript may become suitable for publication after substantial revision and, where appropriate, further peer review.

13.4. Reject

This recommendation should be made when the manuscript:

• falls outside the aims and scope of the Journal;
• lacks a meaningful scholarly contribution;
• contains serious methodological flaws;
• is based on unreliable, fabricated, falsified, or otherwise compromised data;
• involves significant breaches of research ethics or publication ethics;
• contains deficiencies that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.

A recommendation to reject should always be supported by clear, objective, evidence-based, and constructive comments.

14. Review Timelines

HCMCOUJS applies the following standard review timelines:

• Response to a review invitation: within 07 working days.
• First-round peer review: within 28 working days.
• Second-round review (re-review): within 07 working days.
• Editorial decision following receipt of reviewer reports: normally within 5 working days.

If reviewers require additional time, they should notify the Editorial Office as early as possible.

Where a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the agreed timeframe, the Journal may appoint an alternative reviewer to ensure the timely processing of the manuscript.

15. Circumstances Requiring Immediate Notification to the Editorial Office

Reviewers should promptly notify the Editorial Office whenever they identify, or have reasonable grounds to suspect, any of the following:

• plagiarism;
• self-plagiarism;
• redundant or duplicate publication;
• unreliable, fabricated, or falsified data;
• anomalous or implausible research findings;
• inappropriate image manipulation;
• absence of required research ethics approval;
• failure to disclose funding sources or conflicts of interest;
• undisclosed use of artificial intelligence;
• citation manipulation;
• authorship disputes or inappropriate authorship practices;
• suspected paper mills;
• suspected peer-review manipulation.

Reviewers should not independently investigate the author(s), contact the author(s) directly, or disclose such concerns publicly.

All concerns should be reported confidentially to the Editorial Office and handled in accordance with the Publication Ethics & Research Integrity Policy and the Ethics Flowcharts and Editorial Procedures.

16. Recognition of Reviewer Contributions

HCMCOUJS values and recognizes the scholarly contributions of reviewers through appropriate forms of acknowledgment, including:

• letters of appreciation;
• reviewer certificates;
• publication of an annual list of reviewers, subject to the reviewer's consent;
• nomination for Outstanding Reviewer Awards;
• invitations to participate in reviewer panels, Editorial Boards, or other academic activities organized by HCMCOUJS, where appropriate.

All forms of reviewer recognition shall preserve the confidentiality of manuscripts and reviewer identities in accordance with the Journal's double-blind peer review policy.

17. Reviewer Declaration

By accepting an invitation to review, reviewers acknowledge and confirm that:

1. I possess the necessary expertise to evaluate the manuscript.
2. I have no actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could compromise my objectivity.
3. I will maintain the confidentiality of all manuscript materials throughout and after the peer-review process.
4. I will not use any unpublished information contained in the manuscript for personal, academic, professional, or commercial benefit.
5. I will not upload the manuscript or any confidential materials to artificial intelligence tools or third-party platforms.
6. I will conduct the review objectively, fairly, independently, and constructively.
7. I will complete the review within the agreed timeframe or promptly notify the Journal if an extension is required.
8. I will immediately inform the Editorial Office if I identify any concerns relating to publication ethics, research integrity, authorship, research data, artificial intelligence, conflicts of interest, or other ethical matters.

18. Revision and Updating of this Handbook

This Handbook shall be reviewed periodically, normally once each year, or whenever necessary following changes in:

• HCMCOUJS policies;
• applicable laws or regulatory requirements;
• Scopus evaluation criteria;
• internationally recognized publication ethics standards;
• editorial best practices; or
• other relevant scholarly publishing requirements.

Any revisions or amendments shall be formally approved by the appropriate editorial authority and published on the official HCMCOUJS website.