Reviewer Guidelines

Welcome to the Corpus Intellectual Reviewer Guidelines page. Corpus Intellectual, the Journal of the College of Postgraduate Studies at Redeemer's University, Ede, deeply values the dedication of peer reviewers who contribute their time and expertise to uphold the journal's standards.

Our reviewers play a vital role in ensuring the integrity, rigor, and impact of the research we publish.

Reviewer Profile

Corpus Intellectual welcomes reviewers who demonstrate expertise in the field relevant to a submitted manuscript. Reviewers are expected to possess the following qualifications:

A PhD or equivalent research qualification in the subject area (or an MD for medical disciplines)

An active research record with publications in recognized academic databases such as Scopus or Web of Science

Current affiliation with a university or research institution

No conflict of interest with the authors (including institutional or recent publication ties)

Commitment to timely, ethical, and constructive review practices following the COPE Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Invitation to Review

Each manuscript submitted to Corpus Intellectual is reviewed by at least two experts. Invited reviewers who feel unqualified or have a conflict of interest should promptly decline the invitation. Timely acceptance or declination helps ensure a smooth review process.

Timeline of Review Process

Reviewers are requested to complete their reports within the timeframe stated in the invitation. If unforeseen circumstances prevent timely completion, please notify the editorial office as soon as possible.

The full peer-review process may take up to 8–16 weeks, depending on the number of review rounds and response times.

Review Reports

Review reports should offer clear, detailed, and constructive feedback on all parts of the manuscript, including methods, data, figures, and conclusions. Comments should be professional, specific, and aimed at helping authors improve their work.

Key Reminder:

Reviews should always remain confidential and objective.

Rating the Manuscript

Reviewers are encouraged to evaluate manuscripts based on the following key benchmarks:

Relevance to the journal's aims and scope

Originality and contribution to knowledge

Soundness of research design and methodology

Clarity and coherence of presentation

Adequacy of data analysis and interpretation

Ethical compliance and conflict-of-interest declarations

Writing quality and organization

For reference, reviewers may consult discipline-specific reporting standards such as CONSORT, PRISMA, ARRIVE, or SRQR.

Overall Recommendation

After completing the review, reviewers should choose one of the following recommendations:

Accept

The manuscript is ready for publication with minor or no changes.

Minor Revisions

Requires small improvements before acceptance.

Major Revisions

Substantial revisions are needed; acceptance depends on revision quality.

Reject

The manuscript contains major flaws or lacks sufficient contribution to the field.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide unbiased, professional assessments and submit their feedback within the agreed timeframe. All correspondence and review materials must be treated as confidential. Reviewers should notify the editors if they discover any ethical concerns, such as plagiarism or data fabrication.

Conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest when invited to review. Examples include:

Shared affiliations
Recent collaborations
Personal relationships with the authors

Confidentiality Requirements

All manuscripts are confidential and should not be shared or discussed with others. After review completion, reviewers must delete any copies of the manuscript from their records.

Remember:

Confidentiality is a cornerstone of the peer-review process.

Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Important Restriction:

Reviewers must not upload manuscript content to generative AI tools. Doing so may compromise author confidentiality and intellectual property.

Permitted AI Use:

General research (such as checking public literature)
Improving grammar in a reviewer's personal notes

Prohibited AI Use:

Evaluating a manuscript's content or findings
Uploading any manuscript content to AI tools

Each review must reflect the reviewer's own independent judgment, supported by scholarly expertise.

Closing Note

Corpus Intellectual sincerely appreciates the essential role of peer reviewers in maintaining the quality and credibility of academic publishing. By adhering to these guidelines, reviewers help ensure that the journal continues to serve as a trusted platform for rigorous and ethical scholarship.

Thank you for contributing your expertise to Corpus Intellectual and to the advancement of interdisciplinary research.