Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

  1.  The Review Process and Your Role
  2.  Core Review Criteria
  • Confidentiality: The review process is strictly confidential. The manuscript you are reviewing is a privileged document. Please do not share it with any colleague or use the information contained within for your own advantage or that of others. If you wish to consult a junior colleague for assistance, you must first obtain permission from the editor.
  • Double-Blind Review: Our journal operates a double-blind review system. The author(s) do not know your identity, and you should not know theirs. If you suspect you know the author's identity, please notify the editor immediately to ensure there is no conflict of interest.
  • Timeliness: We request that you submit your review within 2 weeks of accepting the invitation. If you require an extension, please contact the editorial office as soon as possible. Your prompt response helps us provide timely feedback to our authors.

Please assess the manuscript based on the following criteria. Your evaluation should be tailored to the manuscript type (e.g., a case study is not expected to present broad generalizable data).

A. Overall Impression & Significance

  • Originality: Is the work original and novel? Does it add to the existing body of knowledge?
  • Significance: Is the research question important? What is the potential impact of the findings on the field?
  • Scope: Is the manuscript appropriate for the readership of [Journal Name]?

B. Structure and Clarity

  • Organization: Is the manuscript well-organized and logical? Does it follow the standard structure for its type (IMRAD, etc.)?
  • Clarity: Is the language clear, concise, and unambiguous? Is the English of a publishable standard?
  • Title and Abstract: Do they accurately reflect the content of the manuscript?

C. Scientific Merit and Rigor

  • Introduction & Literature Review: Does the introduction provide sufficient background and clearly state the study's objective or hypothesis? Is the literature review current and relevant?
  • Methodology:
  1. Are the methods described in sufficient detail to allow for replication?
  2. Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
  3. Are the statistical analyses suitable and correctly applied?
  4. Has ethical approval (IRB/IACUC) been obtained and stated, where applicable? For case studies, has informed consent been confirmed?
  • Results:
  1. Are the results presented clearly and logically?
  2. Are the tables and figures well-designed, necessary, and correctly labeled? Do they support the text?
  • Discussion & Conclusion:
  1. Are the results interpreted correctly and appropriately?
  2. Does the discussion address the study's limitations?
  3. Are the conclusions justified by the data presented? Do they avoid overstatement?
  • References: Are the references appropriate and current? Are they formatted correctly according to the Vancouver style?

 3.       How to Structure Your Review

Your review will be submitted in two parts: confidential comments to the editor and comments for the author.

A. Comments to the Editor (Confidential) This section is for your frank and direct recommendation to the editor. It will not be seen by the author. Please include:

  1. Your Recommendation: (Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, Reject).
  2. A Brief Rationale: A summary of your reasoning for your recommendation.
  3. Confidential Concerns: Any serious concerns you may have about the work (e.g., potential plagiarism, data falsification, major ethical breaches) that you do not wish to state directly to the author.

B. Comments to the Author This section is your primary tool for helping the author improve their manuscript. Please be constructive, professional, and specific.

  • Start with a summary: Briefly summarize your understanding of the paper and its main contribution. This shows the author you have engaged with their work.
  • Organize your feedback: Use numbered or bulleted lists to separate major points from minor ones.

ü  Major Concerns: Issues that must be addressed before the paper can be reconsidered for publication (e.g., flaws in methodology, unsupported conclusions).

ü  Minor Concerns: Suggestions for improvement that are less critical (e.g., clarifying a sentence, suggesting an additional reference, correcting a typo).

  • Be specific and polite: Instead of saying "The methods are unclear," say "The description of the statistical analysis in the Methods section is unclear. Please specify which software was used and the exact tests performed."
  • Avoid personal or derogatory remarks. Focus entirely on the manuscript, not the author.

4.       Step by step to review manuscript in JKR is attached here.