Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Manuscript review needs to be conducted confidentially, the article under review should not be disclosed to a third party. If you wish to elicit opinion from colleagues regarding the article, you should let the editor know beforehand. If you receive a manuscript that is outside your scope, please contact the editor so that the manuscript can be reassigned.

Be aware when you submit your review that any recommendations or advice you make, will contribute to the final decision which is made by the Editor-in-chief.

To conduct this review will require two or three hours. We recommend you complete the evaluation in one go to enhance objectivity.

These guidelines are only a framework that reviewers may build from. Reviewers are strongly encouraged to elaborate on any of the included questions or any other concerns that they may have about the manuscript.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript according to the criterial shown below and the authors guidelines outlined for the journal 

  1. Originality

    What is this research about? Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the article fit the scope of MJTUM? Does the article adhere to the journal's standards? Is the research question an important one? In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the Journal it might be helpful to think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in? Is it in the top 25% of papers in this field? You might wish to do a quick literature search using tools such as Scopus to see if there are any reviews of the area. If the research has been covered previously, pass on references of those works to the editor.

  2. Structure

    Is the article clearly laid out? Are all the key elements present: abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion and conclusions and/or recommendation? Evaluate the study design, methods and analysis appropriateness to the research question(s) or objectives.

  3. Previous Research

    If the article builds upon previous research does it reference that work appropriately? Are there any important works that have been omitted? Are the references accurate?

  4. Ethical Issues

    Does the research meet all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity?

    Ethics of Experimentation

    • Are there any ethical concerns? Was ethical approval acquired? If the research is medical in nature, has confidentiality been maintained? If there has been violation of accepted norms of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects these should also be identified.

    Publication Ethics

    • Is the article plagiarized? If you suspect plagiarism, that an article is a substantial copy of a work(s) you are familiar with let the editor know, please cite the previous work(s).
    • Is the article duplication publication? Alert the editor in case of any knowledge of similar article to prevent duplicate publication.
    • Fraud, it is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect that the results in an article to be untrue let the editor know explaining why you believe the results to be fraudulent.