Reviewer Recommendations

Navigation: Resources > For Reviewers > Reviewer Recommendations

This resource establishes CorayNova Academic Press's standards for reviewer recommendations.

Reviewer recommendations help editors understand the reviewer's assessment, but they do not determine the editorial decision. Final editorial decisions are made by the journal's Editor-in-Chief or authorized responsible editors.

· Core Principle

A recommendation must be consistent with the substance of the review report. Reviewers should explain the reasons for their recommendation and identify which concerns are essential to the decision.

Editors may reach a decision that differs from a reviewer recommendation when the editor's assessment of the manuscript, reviewer reasoning, journal scope, policy requirements, ethics concerns, or additional reviews supports a different outcome.

· Recommendation Options

Recommendation

Appropriate Use

Reviewer Report Should Explain

Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive changes required.

Why the evidence, reporting, ethics, and contribution meet the journal's standards.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is broadly suitable, but limited clarification, correction, formatting, reference, figure, language, or reporting improvements are needed.

Which changes are required and why they are minor.

Major Revision

The manuscript may become suitable if substantial issues are addressed.

The major issues affecting interpretation, method, data, ethics, reporting, or clarity, and what would need to be resolved.

Reject

The manuscript has problems that are unlikely to be resolved through revision for the journal.

The decisive concerns, such as scope mismatch, unsupported claims, major methodological limits, integrity concerns, or insufficient contribution.

Reject and Resubmit

The work may have potential but requires fundamental restructuring, additional evidence, substantial reanalysis, or a new submission route.

Why a standard revision is not sufficient and what would be needed for a future submission.

· Using Recommendations Responsibly

· Choose the recommendation that matches the severity and fixability of the issues identified in the report.

· Do not recommend rejection for reasons unrelated to the manuscript's scholarly content, ethics, reporting, scope, or evidence.

· Do not recommend acceptance while identifying unresolved major concerns unless the concerns are clearly optional and not material.

· Do not treat author identity, institution, geography, native language, seniority, or career stage as a basis for recommendation.

· Do not use the recommendation to pressure authors into unnecessary citation, collaboration, data sharing beyond policy requirements, or changes that serve the reviewer's personal interests.

· Coercive Citation Is Prohibited

Reviewers may recommend citations only when the cited work is directly relevant to the manuscript and the reason for the recommendation is clear.

Reviewers must not require authors to cite the reviewer, the reviewer's friends, colleagues, institution, journal, editorial network, or unrelated literature as a condition for a favorable review or publication recommendation.

· Recommendation and Comment Alignment

If the Recommendation Is

The Comments to Authors Should

Confidential Comments May Add

Accept

Explain the manuscript's strengths and any minor optional improvements.

Any editorial-only note about article type, policy checks, or publication handling.

Minor Revision

Identify limited required changes and avoid framing them as fatal flaws.

Clarification about priority or editorial handling if needed.

Major Revision

Clearly identify the major issues and what would need to change.

Ethics, integrity, confidentiality, or conflict concerns that should not be public to authors.

Reject

Explain the decisive scholarly, methodological, ethical, reporting, or scope concerns respectfully.

Additional confidential concerns requiring editorial handling.

Reject and Resubmit

Explain why a new submission route or fundamental revision is needed.

Any workflow or policy concern relevant to whether resubmission should be invited.

· Final Editorial Decision

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Editors consider the review reports, manuscript content, journal scope, article type, ethical requirements, policy requirements, author responses, and the overall editorial record before making a decision.

A revision invitation is not a promise of acceptance. Revised manuscripts may be accepted, rejected, returned for further revision, sent for further review, or otherwise handled according to the journal's editorial workflow.