We consider manuscript refereeing as a highly-regarded and honorable service to the readers and to the scientific community at large. Reviewers play a pivotal role not only in helping to evaluate individual manuscript but also in determining the overall quality of the journal. Therefore, we take great care when choosing reviewers and take into account their expertise and reputation in the field as well as our own past experience with them.
Things to Consider as a Reviewer:
Expertise: As a reviewer, you have to make sure that the article you are being requested to review match to your expertise. Do not accept an invitation if you are not competent enough to do the review.
Time: Our aim is to complete the whole review process and publication of a manuscript as promptly as possible in order to keep timeliness of the published research. We therefore ask our reviewers to respond to the editor's initial contact with them as soon as possible but no later than 24 hours, and with their review report within 15 days unless otherwise agreed with the editor.
Conflicting interests: A conflict of interest must not stop you from conducting a review. However, you must notify the editor as well for the editor to become aware because this will be considered during the evaluation of your review.
During the Review Process
You must keep in mind that confidentiality is one of the important things you must respect. Do not share any information or findings to other people. If you want to elicit opinions from others, make sure to inform the editor beforehand and do not try to contact the author.
Keep in mind that you need to make a serious and honest review because your recommendations will contribute to the decision of the editor.
Review the article based on the criteria required.
If plagiarized materials and manipulated data are suspected, inform the editor immediately
Reviewers must consider the following criteria in conducting a review by asking some of the indicated questions:
Originality and Appropriateness: Does the article conform to the standard of the journal?
Structure and Lay-out: Does the article follow the standard format and the tables and figures are presented accurately?
Title: Does the title describe the entire article?
Summary or Abstract: Does it show the content of the entire article?
Methodology: Does the data collection process properly explained? Is the design appropriate for the article? Are there enough samples to represent the entire population?
Results and Analysis: Does the result properly analyzed? Are the statistics correctly done? Is there enough interpretation provided?
Conclusion and Discussion: Is there enough evidence to support the conclusion? Do the recent findings support the previous theories? Are the results reasonable?
Ethical Issues: Does the article free from plagiarism and fraud? Is there any human and animal rights violated?
Communicating the Review:
If you found that the article needs improvement, immediately communicate the report to the editor. The report must contain the needed information. Lastly, you must make proper recommendations such rejected, accepted and for minor or major revision.
Notes for the Reviewers:
A timely return of the reviewers' recommendations is crucial to the publishing process. Late return of reviews is the main element that delays publication.
We hope that you will strive to bring to each review your considered expertise, to judge each paper with an open mind, and to find the right point between judging too permissively and too strictly.