Reviewer Guidelines
- Confidentiality: The manuscript being reviewed should be considered a confidential document. It should not be shared with or discussed with others without prior permission from the editor.
- Conflict of interest: If the reviewer has a conflict of interest with the authors or the content of the manuscript, they should decline to review it.
- Timeliness: The reviewer should return their review to the editor within the specified timeframe.
- Standards of objectivity: The review should be conducted objectively and should not be influenced by personal feelings or beliefs. The review should be constructive and respectful.
- Criteria for content review: The review should address the following criteria:
- the Abstract is part of the review; as it is the first section of any article, it should be succinct and match the overall content of the article and encourage the reader to read through the entire article
- significance and originality of the research
- methodology and execution
- validity of the conclusions
- appropriateness of the references cited
- readability and organization of the manuscript
- Comments to the authors: The reviewer should provide specific and constructive feedback to the authors on how they can improve their manuscript.
- Recommendation: The reviewer should recommend whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected, and provide a rationale for their decision.
- Identify any other issues such as Plagiarism issues
- Please refer to the Responsibility of Reviewers section of the JMUST Ethics and Malpractice Statement for details of reviewer responsibilities
