REGKT logo
Research Explorations in Global Knowledge & Technology A gateway to open, impactful, and trusted research
Impact Factor: 9.6

For Reviewers

REGKT’s reviewers are selected for sustained scholarly excellence and integrity. This page explains eligibility, appointment, responsibilities, recognition, and how we verify service.

Why Review with REGKT

Selectivity

~18% acceptance

Rigorous screening for reviewer appointments.

Impact

2,300+ citations

Articles you help shape are widely read and reused.

Global

40+ countries

Diverse expertise across disciplines and regions.

Timeliness

3–4 weeks

Typical review window with calibrated expectations.

Eligibility & Selection

  • Scholarly record: peer-reviewed publications or equivalent contributions in a relevant field.
  • Subject expertise: demonstrated domain specialization and methodological fluency.
  • Independence: free of conflicts with authors, institutions, or funders for assigned work.
  • Professional standing: academic/industry role with evidence of leadership or innovation.
  • Standards & ethics: commitment to confidentiality, impartiality, and reproducible science.
  • Reliability: consistent delivery of constructive, on-time reviews.

Appointment reflects recognized expertise and a track record of scholarly contributions.

Appointment & Documentation

Nomination
Reviewers are proposed by Editors or apply with a CV, publication list, and areas of expertise.
Evaluation
Editorial panel verifies scholarly record (selected works, citations, impact, software/data outputs).
Invitation
Formal invitation letter specifies term length, expectations, and confidentiality/COI obligations.
Activation
Profile is created in our reviewer database with verified identifiers (e.g., ORCID, institutional email).
Recordkeeping
Each completed review is logged with manuscript ID, date, decision recommendation, and editor of record.
Service Verification: Upon request, REGKT issues an official letter confirming review service (dates, scope, number of reviews, and performance summary). See “Recognition & Proof” below.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Quality & Rigor

  • Evaluate claims, methods, statistics, and limitations.
  • Check availability of data/code and reproducibility signals.
  • Ensure citations and prior art are fairly represented.

Confidentiality & COI

  • Maintain strict confidentiality; do not share or reuse materials.
  • Declare conflicts (personal, financial, institutional) before review.
  • Recuse where impartiality could be compromised.

Professionalism

  • Deliver constructive, unbiased feedback within the agreed timeline.
  • Use respectful, inclusive language; avoid personal remarks.
  • Flag ethical or integrity concerns to the editor privately.

Editorial Standards & Scoring Rubric

Reviews are guided by the following rubric; scores inform, but do not replace, editorial judgment.

CriterionGuidance for ReviewersScore (1–5)
Originality Is the contribution novel and clearly distinguished from prior work? Are claims specific and testable? 1 2 3 4 5
Rigor Are methods appropriate and sufficiently detailed? Are stats, ablations, baselines, and uncertainty reported? 1 2 3 4 5
Reproducibility Are data/code available or justifiably restricted? Are artifacts documented and versioned? 1 2 3 4 5
Ethics & Safety Have risks, biases, human/animal approvals, and privacy safeguards been addressed? 1 2 3 4 5
Clarity & Impact Are writing, figures, and limitations clear? Is the likely impact or utility substantiated? 1 2 3 4 5

Editors seek at least two independent reviews; discrepant scores trigger reconciliation or an additional review.

Workflow & Timelines

Invite
→
COI Check
→
Review (3–4 wks)
→
Decision
→
Revision
  • Extensions: If needed, communicate early; partial notes are preferable to silent delays.
  • Anonymity: Double-blind by default; identity revealed only with mutual consent post-decision.
  • Integrity checks: Editors may run plagiarism/image forensics and consult specialized ethics reviewers.

Training & Calibration

  • Onboarding brief: concise guide on ethics, scope, and rubric usage.
  • Sample reviews: annotated exemplars of high-quality reports.
  • Mentored rounds: optional co-review with a Senior/Associate Editor.
  • Calibration: periodic spot-checks to align interpretation across fields.
  • Feedback loop: editors provide meta-feedback to strengthen future reviews.
  • Recognition: see below for certificates, letters, and public credit options.

Recognition & Proof of Service

Official Confirmation

Upon request, REGKT issues a signed Service Verification Letter on letterhead confirming:

  • Your role (Reviewer / Handling Editor where applicable)
  • Service period and number of completed reviews
  • Subject areas and typical turnaround time
  • Quality highlights (e.g., clarity, rigor, ethical vigilance)

Sample language: “This letter certifies that Dr. Alex Example served as a peer reviewer for REGKT between Jan 2024 and Aug 2025, completing 7 independent reviews in AI/Health Informatics with on-time delivery and high-quality evaluations as assessed by handling editors.”

Public Credit (Optional)

  • ORCID: We can add verified review activity to your ORCID record (with your consent).
  • Reviewer registries: We support recognition services (e.g., Publons/Review Commons equivalents) where appropriate.
  • Certificates: Annual certificate acknowledging service and contribution.

Request Verification Letter PDF Signed Letterhead

Ethics, Confidentiality & COI

  • Do not share, store, or reuse manuscripts, figures, or data outside the review process.
  • Disclose any conflicts (personal, financial, or collaborative) before accepting an assignment.
  • Do not attempt to identify authors; avoid citations to your own work unless scientifically necessary.
  • Immediately report suspected plagiarism, data/image manipulation, or safety concerns to the editor.

Terms, Renewal & Removal

  • Term: Appointments are typically for 2 years, renewable based on performance and availability.
  • Load: Invitations are matched to expertise; reviewers may decline without penalty.
  • Performance: Punctuality, thoroughness, and constructive tone factor into renewal decisions.
  • Pause/Resign: You may pause or resign at any time; we will update records accordingly.
  • Removal: Repeated breaches of confidentiality, COI, or timelines may result in removal.
  • Appeal: You may appeal removal to the Editorial Office with documentation.

Apply to Become a Reviewer

  1. Prepare a brief CV (2–3 pages) and a list of 5–8 representative publications or outputs.
  2. Provide domains of expertise and methods (e.g., “clinical NLP, fairness auditing, RCT design”).
  3. Include ORCID and institutional email for verification.
  4. Email your materials to editor@regkt.com with subject “Reviewer Application”.

We aim to respond within 10 business days.

Request Service Verification

Request a Service Verification Letter

Questions? Contact the Editorial Office

We’re happy to clarify eligibility, documentation, or recognition options.

We aim to reply within 2 business days.