Tips for accepting manuscript reviewing

• The selected reviewer should notify the journal whether they accept to review the papers or not (due to the irrelevancy of the topic to their field of expertise, shortage of time, etc,). In case of refusing to review, the reviewer is expected to assist the editor-in-chief in choosing a successor.
• The reviewer must be an expert in the field of the written article. They should not accept to review articles that are far from their expertise. The reviewers must not accept to review those articles with which they may find a conflict of interest and it eschews their fair judgment.
• A reviewer must not review the manuscripts written to benefit specific persons, institutions, or companies.
• A reviewer must not review manuscripts in which they have been involved.
• The reviewers should maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and avoid sharing the reviewed article or discussing its details.
• The reviewer must not involve anyone else including their colleagues or graduate students they are mentoring in the review of a manuscript without the editor in chief’s permission. The names of any individuals who have assisted the reviewers in reviewing should be included in the returned review so that their names to be recorded.
• The reviewers must not directly contact the authors for the article during reviewing process. Any contact must be made by the journal’s office.
• The reviewers must report any occurrence of misconduct in publishing or in research. Related evidence should be presented to the editor-in-chief.  

 

Review Process Guidelines

What points should be considered when assessing the paper quality?

1. Is the submitted manuscript clear, correct, and within the journal’s scope?

• Are the problems and purposes of the work clearly stated?
• Is the subject of the work within the journal’s scope?
• Is it correct and free of obvious errors?
• Are the mathematics and methodology of the work rigorous?

2. Is the work original and interesting for the readers?

• Is the submitted manuscript original? Does it contain new results that advance the prior research results in its scientific field?
• Has any part of the paper already been published elsewhere? Does it constitute plagiarism?
• Is the paper scientifically sound and not misleading?
• Is the presentation complete for a scientific paper? Is there any critical information missing?
• Does it refer to up-to-date and international references? Are the results compared to up-to-date and valid work?

3. Is the presentation of ideas satisfactory?

• Does the title of the paper reflect the content of the paper?
• Is the abstract well written to describe the essential information?
• Is the introduction section well-written and satisfactory?
• Is the length of the paper appropriate depending on its type?
• Is the conclusion section logically entailed by the results?
• Is the paper written in concise and eloquent English?

 

Tips for writing a review report

Reviewers should consider the following points when writing their review report

1. There are two sections to write your review, one for the reviewer’s comments to the chief editor and another for the reviewer’s comments to the authors. Your comments to the chief editor will be read-only by the editorial office and will not be revealed to the authors.

2. Provide an overall recommendation for or against the publication of the manuscript to the chief editor.

3. If you believe that the manuscript requires revision, you are requested to provide constructive comments and suggestions for improving the quality and presentation of the paper.

4. When you provide suggestions on revisions, make it clear if they are mandatory or optional.

5. For timely and rapid review, point out all the faults of the paper only once. Do not add new criticisms after the authors have submitted the revised version. This will delay the review process and make it endless.