Reviewer Guidelines
Peer review in all its forms plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process depends to a large extent on trust and requires that everyone involved behave responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and may be unaware of their ethical obligations. The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers set out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process. It is hoped they will provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for journals and editors in guiding their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers.
Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:
- Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality review.
- Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.
- Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work – before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.
- Do you need to find out more about reviewing and the peer review process? If so, check out the free tutorials on the TJNR Peer Review Process
Reviewing Agreement
Respond to the invitation as soon as you can (even if it is to decline) – a delay in your decision slows down the review process and means more waiting for the author. If you do decline the invitation, it would be helpful if you could provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.
If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.
When you sit down to write the review, make sure you familiarize yourself with TJNS Author guidelines.
First read the article. You might consider spot-checking major issues by choosing which section to read first. Below we offer some tips about handling specific parts of the paper.
Methodology
If the manuscript you are reviewing is reporting an experiment, check the methods section first. The following cases are considered major flaws and should be flagged:
- Unsound methodology
- Discredited method
- Missing processes known to be influential on the area of reported research
- A conclusion drawn in contradiction to the statistical or qualitative evidence reported in the manuscript
For analytical papers examine the sampling report, which is mandated in time-dependent studies. For qualitative research make sure that a systematic data analysis is presented and sufficient descriptive elements with relevant quotes from interviews are listed in addition to the author’s narrative.
Research data and visualizations
Once you are satisfied that the methodology is sufficiently robust, examine any data in the form of figures, tables, or images. Authors may add research data, including data visualizations, to their submission to enable readers to interact and engage more closely with their research after publication. Please be aware that links to data might, therefore, be present in the submission files. These items should also receive your attention during the peer review process. Manuscripts may also contain database identifiers or accession numbers (e.g. genes) in relation to our database linking program.
Critical issues in research data, which are considered to be major flaws can be related to insufficient data points, statistically non-significant variations and unclear data tables.
Ethical considerations
Experiments including patient or animal data should properly be documented. Most journals require ethical approval by the author’s host organization.
Overview
If you don’t spot any major flaws, take a break from the manuscript, giving you time to think. Consider the article from your own perspective. When you sit down to write the review, again make sure you familiarize yourself with TJES Author guidelines.
Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. It will also aid the author and allow them to improve their manuscript. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any ad hominem remarks or personal details including your name and/or affiliation.
Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data and evidence.
Step one: Request for Review
Request for Review
You have been selected as a potential reviewer of the following submission. Below is an overview of the submission, as well as the timeline for this review. We hope that you are able to participate.
Article Title
Abstract
Review Type : Anonymous Reviewer/Anonymous Author
View All Submission Details
Review Schedule
Editor’s Request
Response Due Date
Review Due Date
About Due Dates
Competing InterestsThis publisher has a policy for disclosure of potential competing interests from its reviewers. Please take a moment to review this policy.
- I do not have any competing interests I may have competing interests (Specify below)
- Yes, I agree to have my data collected and stored according to the privacy statement.
Accept Review, Continue to Step #2 or Decline Review Request
If You already accept the review you will see the save and continue button
Save and continue
Step Two: Reviewer Guidelines
Please read the reviewer Guidelines and then click continue to step 3
Continue to Step #3 Go Back
Step Three: Download and review
In this step you can do:
-Again you can read reviewers’ guidelines, and you must read how to ensure all files are anonymized during the upload review files
-Download manuscript files
-complete the review form
-Review Recommendation
Please write comments for Author (s) and comments for TJES Editor, Also, you may want to write comments and/or suggestion to TJES journal about review form. Bear in mind that there will be the opportunity to direct separate comments to both the editor and the author.
When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor will likely use for classifying the article:
- Accepted without modifications
- Accepted with minor corrections
- Accepted with major modifications
- Rejected.
either major or minor (explain the revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether you would be happy to review the revised article). If you are recommending a revision, you must furnish the author with a clear, sound explanation of why this is necessary.
The final decision
The editor ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the article. The editor will weigh all views and may call for another opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision.
-Upload reviewer file (separate file with reviewer comments and/or the manuscript with the reviewer comments)
and then
Submit Review Save for Later Go Back
Step Four: Review Submitted
you can see thanking letter and you can do a discussion with the editor if you have any questions
Please note: Thanking e-mail will be sent when the editor confirms the review this may take several days according to the time of the editor.