Responsibility of Peer Reviewer
The peer reviewer is responsible for critiquing by reading and evaluating manuscripts in the field of expertise, then giving constructive advice and honest feedback to the author of the article submitted. Peer reviewers, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, how to increase the strength and quality of the paper, and evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript.
Before reviewing, please note the following:
- Is the article requested to be reviewed in accordance with your expertise? If you receive a script that covers the topics that are not appropriate areas of your expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Please recommend an alternative reviewer.
- Do you have the time to review this paper? The review process must be completed within two weeks. If you agree and require a longer period, notify the editor as soon as possible, or suggest an alternative reviewer.
When reviewing the article, please consider the following:
- Title: is it clearly illustrating the article?
- Abstract: does it reflect the contents of the article?
- Introduction: does it describe the accuracy of matters submitted by the author and clearly state the problem being considered? Typically, the introduction should summarize the context of the relevant research, and explain the findings of the research or other findings, if any, offered for discussion. This research should explain the experiments, hypotheses, and methods.
Content of the Article
The article you received for review has previously been checked by the editorial team by using Turnitin as a plagiarism checker and not over 30 %. if the study had been previously done by other authors, it is still eligible for publication?
- is the article is fairly new, fairly deep, and interesting to be published?
- does it contribute to knowledge?
- does the article adhere to the standards of the journal?
- Scope - Is the article in line with the objectives and scope of the journal?
This is where the author must explain the findings in his research. It must be arranged clearly and in a logical order. You need to consider whether the analysis has been carried out accordingly or not; the use of statistical tools is correct if the research is quantitative type.
Discussion and Conclusion:
- are the claims in this section is supported by the fair results and quite reasonable?
- does the author compare the research results with other previous ones?
- do the results of research written in the article contradict the previous theories?
- does the conclusion explain how better scientific research to be followed-up?
- The method is written clearly, so then other researchers can replicate the experiment or research with the same result;
- Not only describe the definition of terms but also describe how to conduct the research;
- Describe the location, participant, research instrument, and data analysis;
- Authors must be critical mostly to the literature systematic review of the issues, which is relevant to the field of study.
- Reviews should be focused on a single topic.
- All exposure should be in English/Arabic and written in a god and coherent grammar.
- Easy to understand
- Interesting to read
- All results of the review submitted by reviewers are confidential
- If you want to discuss the article with a colleague, kindly inform the editor
- Do not contact the author directly.
- Ethical issues:
- Plagiarism: if you suspect the article is mostly plagiarism from other authors, please let the editor knows the details
- Fraud: It is very difficult to detect a fraud category, but if you suspect the results in the article is not true, please inform the editor
After reviewing the article, please provide recommendations for writers and editors:
- Accept Submission (with or without minor revisions): The article is well researched and written and on a topic of importance to the field and the journal, with no significant gaps in methodology or analysis. The article may require small additions to its theoretical or scholarly background, or may need to be edited, but does not require any significant additional research or restructuring.
- Revisions Required: The article is on a topic of importance to the field and the journal but requires some additional research or re-writing before it will be suitable for publication. The review identifies several gaps in analysis, theoretical or scholarly background, and/or methodology: or identifies a need for the article to undergo some re-organization or-writing. However, the reviewer is confident that such revisions can be successfully completed under the supervision of the journal editor.
- Resubmit for Review: The article is on a topic of some importance to the field and the journal but requires significant additional research or re-writing before it will be suitable for publication. The review identifies several substantial gaps in analysis, theoretical or scholarly background, and/or methodology: or identifies a need for the article to undergo significant re-organization or re-writing. The reviewer has felt that these necessary revisions are significant enough that the article must be resubmitted for an additional round of review.
- Decline: The article is on a topic of limited relevance to the field and the journal, and/or requires significant additional research or re-writing before it will be suitable for publication. In the latter case, the review identifies several significant gaps in analysis, theoretical or scholarly background, and/or methodology: and/or identifies a need for the article to undergo significant re-organization or re-writing. The reviewer has little confidence that such revisions can be successfully completed in a reasonable time frame.
Complete "The Review" by the due date to the editorial office. Your recommendation for the article will be considered when the editor makes a final decision and your honest feedback is highly appreciated.
When you write a comment, please show the part of the comment that is only intended for the editor and parts that can be returned to the author.
Please do not hesitate to contact the editorial office with any questions or problems that you may encounter.
Download Link Reviewer Guideline Alsuna Journal