Reviewer Guidelines

We extend our heartfelt appreciation to the scholars who dedicate their time to peer-review the submissions to Mari Papel y Corrugado. A thorough peer-review process is fundamental to ensuring high standards in academic publishing.

1. Peer Review and Editorial Process

Peer review plays a crucial role in our publication workflow, guaranteeing that Mari Papel y Corrugado upholds exceptional quality for all published articles. Each manuscript submitted undergoes a meticulous review by subject matter experts.

Upon submission, the Managing Editor conducts an initial technical evaluation of the manuscript. Subsequently, an appropriate academic editor is assigned to review the submission and recommend potential reviewers. The academic editor may choose to advance to peer review, reject the manuscript, or request revisions prior to the review. If the peer review process proceeds, the Editorial Office coordinates the review by independent experts, ensuring that a minimum of two review reports is obtained for each manuscript. Authors are encouraged to make substantial revisions, including a possible second round of peer review, before a final decision is reached. Ultimately, the academic editor—typically the Editor-in-Chief, a member of the Editorial Board, or the Guest Editor for a Special Issue—makes the final decision.

2. Reviewer Profile and Duties

Reviewers play an essential role in safeguarding the integrity of scholarly publishing. Each reviewer is expected to evaluate manuscripts in a timely, transparent, and ethical manner, adhering to the COPE guidelines available here.

Reviewers must meet the following criteria:

• Have no conflicts of interest with any authors.
• Not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors.
• Not have co-published with the authors in the past three years.
• Possess a PhD degree.
• Have relevant experience and a demonstrable publication history in the relevant field (e.g., indexed in Scopus or ORCID).
• Be seasoned scholars within the manuscript’s subject area.
• Hold a recognized academic affiliation.

At Mari Papel y Corrugado, we aim for a rigorous peer-review process to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of each manuscript—this is a primary responsibility of our reviewers. Reviewers who agree to assess a manuscript should:

• Have the expertise necessary to evaluate the scientific merit of the work.
• Provide high-quality review reports and remain engaged throughout the review process.
• Uphold the highest standards of professionalism and ethics.

3. General Guidelines for Reviewers

3.1. Review Invitation

At Mari Papel y Corrugado, each manuscript undergoes evaluation by at least two experts, who may be volunteer reviewers or those recommended by the academic editor during the initial assessment phase. Reviewers are tasked with assessing the manuscript’s quality and advising the external editor on whether to accept the submission, request revisions, or reject it.

We kindly ask reviewers to:

• Confirm or decline review invitations promptly based on the manuscript’s title and abstract.
• Suggest alternative reviewers if they must decline an invitation.
• Request an extension for the review deadline as soon as possible if additional time is needed to provide a thorough evaluation.

3.2. Potential Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers are expected to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and should contact the journal’s Editorial Office if they have questions regarding whether a situation constitutes a conflict. Potential conflicts may include, but are not limited to:

• The reviewer being affiliated with the same institution as one of the authors.
• Co-authorship, collaboration, joint funding, or any academic relationship with any of the authors in the last three years.
• A personal relationship, rivalry, or animosity toward any of the authors.
• Any financial interest, whether gain or loss, related to the publication of the manuscript.
• Other non-financial conflicts (political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, or commercial) that could bias their review.

Reviewers should disclose any factors that could be perceived as bias either for or against the manuscript or its authors.

We also recommend that reviewers familiarize themselves with the relevant sections in the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

3.3. Confidentiality Commitment

Mari Papel y Corrugado employs a single-blind peer-review process. Reviewers must keep the manuscript’s content, including the abstract, confidential until the article is published. It is essential that reviewers do not disclose their identities to the authors, whether through comments or in the metadata of reports submitted in formats like Microsoft Word or PDF. Should a reviewer need a colleague to assist with the evaluation, they must inform the Editorial Office in advance.

3.4. Review Reports

Review reports should be composed in English. Below are some general guidelines to assist you in crafting your report:

Key Considerations:

• Thoroughly read the entire manuscript along with any supplementary materials, paying particular attention to figures, tables, data, and methodologies.
• Your report should not only analyze the manuscript as a whole but also critique specific sections and the key ideas presented.
• Provide detailed feedback to help authors comprehend and address the issues you identify.
• Reviewers should refrain from suggesting citations of their own work, that of close colleagues, or any other authors unless it is essential for enhancing the manuscript’s quality.
• Avoid recommending excessive self-citations or citations of others’ work (honorary citations), or articles from the journal itself solely to boost the visibility of the reviewer or authors. Any references provided should genuinely contribute to improving the manuscript.
• Maintain a constructive tone, focusing on providing helpful feedback that facilitates the authors’ revisions. Negative comments that lack professionalism are not acceptable.
• Reviewers must not use AI or AI-assisted tools (such as ChatGPT) to draft, refine, or evaluate submissions, as this violates peer review confidentiality and introduces copyright and security concerns. For more information, please see this document.
• If the quality of the review report does not meet our standards, you may be asked to revise it or it may be discarded.
• Mari Papel y Corrugado adheres to several standards and guidelines, including ICMJE (for medical journals), CONSORT (for trial reporting), TOP (for data transparency), PRISMA (for systematic reviews), and ARRIVE (for reporting in vivo experiments). For more details, visit our Publishing Standards and Guidelines page or reach out to the Editorial Office. Reviewers familiar with these guidelines should report any issues regarding their application.

For additional assistance in writing a critical review, you may consult the following resources:

• COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Committee on Publication Ethics. Available online.
• Hames, I. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2007.
• Writing a Journal Article Review. Australian National University: Canberra, Australia, 2010. Available online.
• Golash-Boza, T. How to Write a Peer Review for an Academic Journal: Six Steps from Start to Finish. Available online.

Your review report should include:

• A concise summary (one paragraph) that outlines the paper’s aim, main contributions, and strengths.
• General comments addressing the following:
  • The manuscript’s weaknesses, testability of hypotheses, methodological flaws, and missing controls.
  • The completeness and relevance of the review topic, gaps in knowledge, and the suitability of references.
• Specific comments that reference line numbers, tables, or figures, highlighting inaccuracies or unclear sentences. Focus these comments on the scientific content rather than on spelling, formatting, or language issues, as those can be corrected later by our editorial team.

Guiding Questions for Research Articles:

• Is the manuscript clear, relevant, and well-structured?
• Are the references mostly recent (within the last five years) and relevant, without excessive self-citations?
• Is the study scientifically sound, and does the experimental design effectively test the hypothesis?
• Are the results reproducible based on the methods described?
• Are the figures/tables/images appropriately presented, easy to interpret, and consistent in data representation?
• Do the conclusions logically follow from the evidence provided?
• Are the ethics and data availability statements sufficient?

Guiding Questions for Review Articles:

• Is the review clear, comprehensive, and relevant to the field? Does it identify a knowledge gap?
• Has a similar review been published recently, and is the current review still significant for the scientific community?
• Are the references relevant and mostly recent? Are any important citations missing?
• Are the statements and conclusions coherent and backed by the cited sources?
• Are the figures/tables/images appropriately displayed and easy to understand?

The content of your review will be evaluated by an Academic Editor based on its scientific rigor and overall utility for manuscript improvement. The overall evaluation may be referenced for the potential advancement of Reviewer Board Members, Volunteer Reviewers, and regular Reviewers.

3.5. Manuscript Rating

During your evaluation, please assess the following aspects:

• Novelty: Is the research question original and well-defined? Do the findings enhance existing knowledge?
• Scope: Does the manuscript align with the journal’s focus?
• Significance: Are the results interpreted appropriately? Are they significant, and are all conclusions justified?
• Quality: Is the manuscript well-written? Are data and analyses presented effectively?
• Scientific Soundness: Is the study well-designed and methodologically sound? Are analyses conducted with high standards? Is there sufficient detail in methods for reproducibility? Is the raw data accurate and available (where applicable)?
• Interest to Readers: Are the conclusions engaging for the journal’s audience? Will the paper attract a broad readership or only a niche audience?
• Overall Merit: Does publishing this work offer significant benefits? Does it advance knowledge or address important questions through sound experiments?
• Language Quality: Is the English clear and comprehensible?

At this stage, reviewers may also suggest that a manuscript is better suited for publication in a different MDPI journal. To streamline the review process, authors can request that review reports be transferred to another MDPI journal. A comprehensive list of MDPI journals is available here.

Manuscripts submitted to Mari Papel y Corrugado must adhere to the highest standards of publication ethics:

• Manuscripts should report results that have not been previously submitted or published, even partially.
• Manuscripts must be original and avoid reusing text from other sources without proper citation.
• All reported studies must comply with generally accepted ethical research standards.
• If you detect any scientific misconduct, fraud, plagiarism, or other unethical behavior regarding the manuscript, please alert the in-house editor immediately.

3.6. Overall Recommendation

Please provide an overall recommendation for the manuscript’s next steps as follows:

• Accept in Present Form: The manuscript can be accepted without any modifications.
• Accept after Minor Revisions: The manuscript can be accepted after revisions based on your comments. Authors will have five days for minor changes.
• Reconsider after Major Revisions: Acceptance hinges on revisions. Authors must submit a point-by-point response or a rebuttal if certain comments cannot be addressed. Normally, up to two rounds of major revisions are allowed, with a ten-day resubmission window. If substantial revisions require more than two months, authors may be encouraged to withdraw and revise the manuscript to avoid unnecessary delays.
• Reject: The manuscript has serious flaws, lacks original contributions, and will be rejected without an opportunity for resubmission.

Your recommendations are confidential and visible only to the journal editors. All decisions regarding revisions, acceptance, or rejection should be thoroughly justified.