Reviewers are provided with:
- secure, anytime-anywhere access to assigned manuscripts
- online tools for structured peer-review submission
- separate sections to record comments to editors and to authors
This system supports timely, constructive, and well-documented peer review.
Become a Reviewer
HCL Press welcomes qualified experts who are interested in contributing to the scholarly community by serving as peer reviewers. If you would like to be considered, please review the eligibility guidance below and submit your application to the respective journal. Final selection of reviewers is at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.
Engaging as a reviewer strengthens academic publishing, builds professional expertise, and supports the integrity of scientific communication.
How to Become a Reviewer
Candidates may be considered through any of the following routes:
- nomination by established researchers or members of the editorial/advisory board
- direct application to the journal editor with an updated Curriculum Vitae
- invitation by the editorial team based on publication record or subject expertise
All applications are screened by the Editor-in-Chief and acceptance is based on suitability and journal needs.
Reviewer Eligibility – General Criteria
Prospective reviewers are expected to fulfill the following:
- demonstrated expertise in the relevant subject area
- active engagement in research, teaching, or professional practice within the past two years
- familiarity with current developments in the field
- doctoral degree (PhD/MD/MS or equivalent) is generally expected
- prior peer-review experience is desirable but not essential
- at least two recent publications in recognized, peer-reviewed journals
Meeting these criteria does not automatically guarantee appointment; they serve as minimum eligibility standards.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
Peer review is a core element of scholarly publishing. Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining scientific rigor, transparency, and credibility. Reviewers are expected to:
- provide fair, evidence-based, and constructive evaluations
- complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or notify editors if unable to do so
- maintain strict confidentiality of manuscripts and review discussions
- avoid discussing manuscripts with others unless authorized by the editor
- declare any potential conflicts of interest immediately
- refrain from using unpublished data or ideas obtained through review for personal advantage
- identify relevant prior work that has not been cited
- notify editors of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or ethical concerns
- avoid personal criticism; all comments should focus on scientific merit
If a reviewer feels unqualified to assess a manuscript, they should promptly decline the invitation, so alternate reviewers may be assigned.