Peer Review Process

Peer Review Guidelines for OJS (Open Journal Systems)

Thank you for agreeing to serve as a peer reviewer for our journal using Open Journal Systems (OJS). Your expertise and contribution are vital in ensuring the quality and integrity of the research we publish. Please follow the guidelines below to conduct a thorough and constructive peer review:

  1. Review Objectives:

    • Familiarize yourself with the aims and scope of the journal to understand its focus and research interests.
    • Review the manuscript to assess its originality, significance, methodology, results, and conclusions.
  2. Confidentiality:

    • Treat the peer review process as confidential. Do not disclose any information about the manuscript or the review process without prior permission.
    • Avoid conflicts of interest. If you believe there may be a conflict, notify the editor immediately to recuse yourself from the review process.
  3. Timeliness:

    • Notify the editor promptly if you cannot meet the review deadline. This allows them to find an alternative reviewer.
  4. Structure of the Review:

    • Start your review with a brief summary of the manuscript, including the title and the authors' names.
    • Provide an overall assessment of the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses, highlighting its novelty and importance.
    • Identify specific areas that require improvement or clarification, such as the research design, methodology, analysis, or presentation of results.
    • Comment on the manuscript's organization, clarity, and coherence.
    • If applicable, suggest additional references or literature that would enhance the manuscript's quality.
    • Avoid personal remarks or derogatory language. Maintain a professional and constructive tone throughout the review.
  5. Ethical Considerations:

    • Ensure that the manuscript adheres to ethical guidelines, such as avoiding plagiarism, accurately citing sources, and obtaining necessary permissions for any previously published material.
    • Report any concerns about potential ethical issues, such as data fabrication or unethical research practices, to the editor.
  6. Recommendations:

    • Clearly state your recommendation regarding the manuscript:
      • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without further changes.
      • Minor revisions: The manuscript has potential but requires minor revisions or clarifications.
      • Major revisions: The manuscript has potential but requires significant revisions and improvements.
      • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or is fundamentally flawed.
    • Provide specific and constructive suggestions for improvement, if applicable.
  7. Feedback to the Editor:

    • Provide additional confidential comments to the editor, if necessary, regarding any concerns about the manuscript or the review process.

Remember, your review plays a crucial role in maintaining the quality and integrity of the journal. Your feedback and recommendations will help authors improve their work and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field.