Reviewer Guidelines

International Postgraduate Research Conference - (IPRC) takes pride in following a high standardized double-blind peer review process to ensure fairness, objectivity, and impartiality in the evaluation of submitted manuscripts, enhancing the accuracy and high quality of its papers.

Reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations in a professional, ethical, and unbiased manner. Their assessments should be constructive, evidence-based, and aimed at improving the quality, clarity, and scholarly contribution of the manuscript.

Reviewer Checklist

Do

• ☑  Write a brief paragraph summarizing the article. This demonstrates to the editor that you have read and comprehended the study.
• ☑  When leaving a comment, it's best to stick to brief, well-defined paragraphs and make it obvious to the editor and author which part the comment is about.
• ☑  Examine if the paper complies with the guidelines provided by the conference (such as the Author Guidelines).
• ☑  Make precise remarks and recommendations about, for example, the title and abstract: Is the material appropriately reflected in the title? Is the abstract self-contained and comprehensive?
• ☑  Remain accurate in your comments and refrain from speculating on the author(s)' intentions.
• ☑  Examine the methodology, statistical mistakes, findings, conclusion/discussion, and references with great attention.
• ☑  Consider comments on the data presentation in the manuscript, the sustainability of the methodology, reproducibility, data analysis, and if the data supports the findings.
• ☑  If you have any suspicions about plagiarism, fraud, or other ethical issues, let the editor know and be as specific as you can.
• ☑  Refrain from making discriminatory decisions and suggestions.

Don't

• ☒  Focus excessively on spelling, grammar, or formatting issues. If the manuscript contains a strong and compelling research study but is weak in writing quality, inform
• ☒  the editor that the manuscript requires language correction as a reviewer comment.
• ☒  Make remarks ad hominem.
• ☒  Reject concepts or other points of view that could contradict your own beliefs on a subject; keep an open mind when reviewing.
• ☒  Distribute the review or information about review to any third party, without the editors' and authors' consent.
• ☒  Upload, share, or submit to any manuscript content or peer review materials to generative AI platforms or similar technologies.
• ☒  Encourage the author to cite your (or your associates') work, unless doing so serves true scientific purposes and is not motivated by the desire to garner more citations or draw attention to your (or your associates') work

Reviewer responsibilities

1. Evaluate submissions objectively based on scholarly merit, clarity, methodology, relevance, and contribution to the field.
2. Treat all manuscripts, review correspondence, and the outcomes of the review process as strictly confidential.
3. Offer clear, constructive, and professional feedback to authors to help strengthen manuscript quality.
4. Avoid personal criticism of authors and ensure that all evaluations remain fair, respectful, and free from bias.
5. Decline to review manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists or where sufficient expertise is lacking for a fair and objective assessment.
6. Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe to support the efficiency of the editorial process.
7. Notify the editorial team of any potential ethical concerns, including plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or duplicate submission.
8. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive and professional feedback. Criticism should be expressed respectfully, and offensive, discriminatory, or inappropriate language is not acceptable.

Before Reviewing

1. Reviewers should accept only manuscripts that fall within their area of expertise to maintain the standards of the conference.
2. Upon receiving the manuscript, send a reply acknowledging receipt within two days (48 hours) and indicate whether you agree to review it in the same email.
3. Ensure whether he/she can complete the review within two weeks. If the deadline can be met, proceed with the review. However, if there are difficulties meeting the deadline, inform the Editorial Office as a direct reply to the email sent before from iprcreview@kln.ac.lk.
4. Adhere to the conflicts of interest policies and refrain from reviewing manuscripts of such cases including manuscripts that are co-authored by the reviewer himself/herself.

The Review

The article should align with the scope of the conference and maintain high standards of content, quality and originality. It should be ensured that all data and interpretations are clear and understandable, and the review process should be comprehensively addressed.

1. The reviewer is provided with a review form and a manuscript with numbered lines. The reviewer should fill in the review form and comment line wise where any error is recognized.
2. Focus on critical evaluation of the paper and be sure to meticulously check reviews before submission, since reviews directly affect the last decision of the editor.
3. Verify the paper on its accuracy, relevancy, novelty, standards, importance, and sufficiency to be warranted publication.
4. Ensure all the key elements of the study: Title, Abstract, Keywords, Introduction (literature review, study hypothesis, objectives, and the significance of the study), Methodology, Ethical Clearance, Results, Discussion, Conclusions, Acknowledgements, Declaration of Funding Sources, Conflict of interest statement, Data Availability Statement, Author Contribution and References are provided, adequately explained and follows a logical sequence in the paper.
5. Check whether the title of the research and the abstract of the paper reflect the content of the article.
6. Confirm whether the data collection methods and statistical analyses are accurate.
7. Overall, verify the information, statistics, references in the paper are correct.
8. Examine whether the conclusions of the paper are sound and sensible, matching well with the contents and findings of the paper.
9. Do not feel compelled to correct language errors, however, you may bring it to the attention of the editor.
10. Provided that a certain article expands past research, ensure it refers to that study appropriately and that there is no malpractice.

Ethical considerations

1. Every reviewer is bound by confidentiality policies. Thus, they should uphold confidentiality of the presented papers. Revealing the data, results, or videos/images or any of the supplementary material of the assigned paper to third parties is prohibited. After receiving the paper, contact only the editor for any further assistance or clarifications.
2. The identity of the reviewers should remain unknown to the authors during the process of review and after its publication and reviewers should not share or discuss any related information with individuals who are not directly involved in the peer review process.
3. All recommendations must maintain integrity. If the conduct of the reviewer is deemed unethical then the manuscript will be assigned to a second reviewer.
4. If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from a colleague or external expert, prior approval from the Editor-in-Chief should be obtained, and the contribution of the consulted individual should be disclosed to the editors.
5. The reviewer may inform the editor regarding suspected duplicate publication, plagiarism, or lack of ethical clearances from the author's side.
6. Any urgent concerns that cannot be adequately addressed within the reviewer report, particularly those relating to ethical standards, research integrity, data reliability, biosecurity, or potential academic or commercial conflicts of interest, should be communicated directly and confidentially to the Editor-in-Chief via email.

Conflict of interest

Conflict of interest arises when a reviewer is currently involved in, planning to engage in, or considering research activities that could benefit from unpublished information contained in a manuscript under review. It also includes any financial or commercial interests, as well as any prior personal or professional relationships with the authors that may compromise impartiality. Such potential conflicts must be disclosed to the chief editor, irrespective of the reviewer's opinion or level of support for the manuscript.

Reviewers are expected to inform the chief editor of any circumstances that may affect the neutrality of their evaluation and are encouraged to decline the review assignment if they feel unable to provide an objective assessment. In accordance with IPRC 2026 policy, reviewers must strictly adhere to conflict-of-interest guidelines and must not review manuscripts in situations where a conflict exists, including those in which they are co-authors or have direct involvement.

Use of AI in peer review

The peer review process is founded on principles of confidentiality, trust, and professional responsibility among authors, reviewers, and editors. Reviewers are expected to provide independent, objective, and constructive evaluations and are fully accountable for the content, accuracy, and integrity of their review reports.

While artificial intelligence (AI) tools may assist with general language-related tasks, they should not be used to evaluate, analyze, summarize, or generate peer review reports for manuscripts submitted to the International Postgraduate Research Conference (IPRC) 2026.

AI systems may produce inaccurate, incomplete, biased, or misleading outputs and cannot exercise the critical judgment, subject expertise, ethical reasoning, or contextual understanding required for scholarly peer review.

Furthermore, manuscripts submitted for review may contain confidential, proprietary, unpublished, or personally identifiable information. Uploading, sharing, or processing any part of a manuscript, reviewer comments, editorial correspondence, or related materials through generative AI tools may compromise confidentiality, infringe upon authors' intellectual property rights, and potentially violate data protection and privacy requirements.

Accordingly, IPRC 2026 strictly prohibits reviewers from uploading, sharing, or submitting any manuscript content or peer review materials to generative AI platforms or similar technologies.

Reviewers must conduct their evaluations independently and maintain the confidentiality of all materials received through the peer review process. The responsibility for the scientific assessment, recommendations, and conclusions expressed in a review report rests solely with the reviewer, who remains fully accountable for its content.