Reviewer's Guide

Responsibilities of Authors 

Authors must send their papers to at least two to three external reviewers and experts in the same field of the reviewers expertise and study (Also send the checklist and the form below  to the reviewer). Kindly keep close contact with the reviewers and implement all requested corrections on your paper before the final submission to WFL publisher journal(s).

Please note that incorrect and inadequately prepared manuscripts will be rejected. Non-native English authors should contact at least two native English speaking scientists or English Language specialists  to crosscheck their manuscripts (§: journal policy). 

Send us the final and improved version of your paper which will be sent to our reviewers. The reviewing process will take between 2 and 5 months, a poorly written paper will be rejected.


Please download the reviewer’s comment form here
Reviewer Application

Reviewers’ checklist

Details about the reviewer/Author 
Reviewer’s name:
Field of expertise: 
Manuscript  title:
Author’s name:

General comment:
Data and the statistical analysis:
Results and discussion:

Please rate the following:(1 = Excellent) (2 = Good) (3 = Fair) (4 = poor)

The English language
Well written 
Clear text
Badly written
Unclear text 

Accept as it is: 
Require minor corrections (specify): 
Requires moderate revision (specify): 
Requires major revision (specify):

Doubts on ground of (specify)
Reject on grounds of (specify):

Additional comments 

Please add any additional comments (Including comments or suggestions): 

Guidelines For Reviewers

As a reviewer, your role is very important, you are to evaluate the articles and subsequently the journal. It is therefore essential for reviewers to be critical, impartial and constructive in the review process. The idea is to come out with a very high quality manuscript for the scientific community and the general public. In other to achieve this target, reviewers are advised to critically read the given guidelines below in other to aid them in their review work. Please use other resources at your disposal for your review as well.

Ethics, time and capabilities

  • Reviewers should consider ethical issues relating to scientific publication like plagiarism, fraud, dual submission or publication, conflicts of interest, incomplete or missing references etc.
  • Reviewers should treat all manuscripts with strict confidentiality: please do not use unpublished data or the privileged knowledge obtained from the manuscripts for interaction and discussions anywhere or on any forum and platform before the publication of the manuscript.
  • Reviewers should not exploit the data or contents of the manuscript in any way for personal gain.
  • Please allocate adequate time and resources to review the paper and work within the stipulated deadline to avoid delays in publication.
  • Ensure that the papers are within your experience and expertise.


Conducting the Review

General comments: Please read the guiding questions under each part to help you evaluate the manuscript thoroughly.       Structure of the manuscript: check whether it contains all the required part.  

  1. Title: does it describe the article?
  2. Abstract: does if reflect the content of the article?
  3. Introduction: does it state clearly the problem under investigation, the aims and scope of the research, and includes a summary of the relevant research in the context of the manuscript? If it is an experiment, is the hypothesis (es) stated clearly? And the experimental design mentioned?
  4. Experimental: Is the data collection process well described? Is the experimental design suitable for solving the problem stated? Is the information given sufficient for repetition of the research? Have the methods been chronologically presented? If new methods are used, are they sufficiently described in detail? Has the equipment, reagents, materials used well described? Were the measurements taken accurately and precisely?
  5. Statistical analysis: Are the statistics used correct or suitable? Are  the errors described correctly?
  6. Results and discussion: Was the data presented clearly with tables or illustrations? If illustrations were used, are they reflective of the data and do they explain the work better than tables?  Were the results logically presented and was the interpretation of the results or discussion correct? Was the discussion related to the expectation of the research or previous research work?
  7. Conclusions: Are they clear and founded on the main conclusions of the investigation?
  8. References: Are these presented according to the WFL publisher journal(s). style (see manuscript preparation) both within the text and at the end of the manuscript?

 Originality: look out for novelty of the ideas presented, and any additions to the knowledge area. 

Quality: Does the manuscript adhere to WFL publisher journal(s) standards? Is it well-organized, concise and or of  high quality?

English Language: Is the manuscript well written, clear, without grammatical and typographical errors? Or is it poorly written ambiguous and full of errors?

Please give a clear recommendation, as to whether to accept, modify or reject the manuscript.
Provide explanation and justification for your recommendation or criticism. 
Be fair, strict and polite in your recommendation or criticism, please state clearly if your comments are a true reflective of the data or your own opinion. 
Be specific when commenting on any part of the manuscript.