If you think the paper is worthy of publication, but lacks certain things, it would be wise to advice the author to correct them or change them.

If you don't think the paper is worthy of publication due to a variety of reasons, then it is not worth outlining the many changes it needs, just advice author to send it to an in-house reviewer for improvements.

Dear Hussein,

I think a lot of details should not be provided. Reviewer should provide certain suggestions but author should deal with details and improve the paper.

Regards

If you think the paper is worthy of publication, but lacks certain things, it would be wise to advice the author to correct them or change them.

If you don't think the paper is worthy of publication due to a variety of reasons, then it is not worth outlining the many changes it needs, just advice author to send it to an in-house reviewer for improvements.

Strive very hard in improving the state of the paper for the better. Enhance its quality with your wide experience in research.

We should act according to reviewer guidelines and best practice. Here is the example of such document.

https://editorresources.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/reviewers-guidelines-and-best-practice/

I would act on such manner in order to help author to improve manuscript to the desired publishing level...

To what extent will you help a researcher who submitted his/her pre-published paper to a journal, and you are the reviewer?

As reviewers we need to assess the quality of the manuscript objectively. I did this by reading the manuscript at least 2 times after reasonable interval(s). If the manuscript is not suitable for publishing, we have to share the fair comment. If the manuscript is potentially contributing to new knowledge but with numerous weaknesses, we can provide constructive criticisms by recommending needed improvements as specific as possible. Reviewers can be the catalyst for others in contributing to knowledge.

To what extent will you help a researcher who submitted his/her pre-published paper to a journal, and you are the reviewer?

I have never reviewed a paper as a reviewer for a particle journal yet. But i think if a reviewer find some spark in the study...and feels that there are some lacking that can be improved either by resubmission.major or minor revision....then he or she should take wise full step by giving just small hints to improve the study in the way it will look better ....

Regards

Thank you Michael, Ljubomir, Han and Thomson for your common agreement about the fact that if a paper has potential, then it is worth to be constructively criticized towards improvement. Also thank you Dickson and Senad for your inputs which encourages going a little bit more in the process of reviewing. I, on a personal style, am inclined to provide details as long as it is not a reject work. Though my advise for foreign contributors writing in English [foreign stands for English is not a strong asset] to make sure to proofread their work before submitting, I have seen many papers with very good ideas lose because of the bad english [most journals insist on the issue of submissions with no errors in the language]; another recommendation is that writers make sure that other colleagues read their papers for validity and quality before submission. Luckily RG is encouraging such practice.

I think the reviewer comments and criticism must be constructive if he think the work is worth enough for some contribution to the readers and have some language or some minor mistakes he should suggest correction, i saw many hard working authors so discouraged by the rejection of their papers due to some minor language mistakes.

I have another query. Sometimes I saw the status of manuscript is same for long time( more than 6 months) like under review or under editor evaluation. What will be the step in these situation? Just waiting or something else? And why such things happen while journals are continuing publish their issues regularly?

Dear Md. Furkanur

The journal editors receive a quantity of articles, he/she then assigns the available readers... So, there is a queue whereby articles will wait until processed by reviewers who depending on the journal may take from 1 week to 3 months... So, the editor has to wait for the 2 or more reviewers to write their reports before going back to the writer. This cycle in some journals extends to 9 months or so. Therefore, writers have to simply wait until they receive the response. Sometimes, writers send a request for status from the editor...

As a reviewer I try:

1. Send my opinion in the short time as possible (no more than a week).

2. Be carefoul than the subject has not been published before.

3. Be sure that hyphotesis have been well discussed and well explained.

4. Be exhaustive in the revision that graphs and equations are correct.

5. Give a short but concise opinion as how the article must be improved if that is the case.

Surely your way Dr. Gallardo is very helpful to support new researchers and first comers. Providing such a detailed review is indeed a reflection of concern for the quality of research.

Valuable answers.

Thanks to all.

Thanks dear Ljubomir Jacić for sharing those useful links.

REGARDS

Good contributions.

If you think the paper is worthy of publication, but lacks certain things, it would be wise to advice the authors on their personal email..

Usually I correct the manuscript thoroughly (suggestions of changes and additions), and I send back to the editor. The author is anonymous. So, the editor chooses to pass the who manuscript or not. Along that, all the suggestions are also written tin the review form sent by the editor.

I have practised fast response to the editor with my review. I do not know why the communication channel between editor and potential author are very slow! That is what bothers the authors.

Agreed Ljubomir, however we have also to take into account the other peer reviewers speed in response, a fact that the editor uses to wait for all reviews to be submitted and then he/she sends the feedback to authors. Then, many variables intertwine here.

I myself like to add many details to encourage better research skills.

Good point Talal. I guess details shall encourage the enhancement of skills provided the author/researcher takes the observations and comments seriously and continuous to improve with time.

I believe constructive criticisim is a must to help others improve.

I make sure as well to provide clear and transparent follow up to assure accountability.

Professional standards demand that the reviewer evaluate any papers according to the requirements of the journal.

True Michael, however, will you make your corrections on the paper and send back with the review form or just filling the review form? This move is not demanded by the journal.

To Hussin Jose Hejase:

It depends on circumstances, but my referee reports are detailed, and intended to be helpful and encouraging.

How a referee does it will vary from one to another.