Guide for Reviewers

Guidelines for Reviewers

-Before you begin

-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.

-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.

 

-Managing your review

Confidential material

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.

 

How to log in and access your review

To access the paper and deliver your review, click on the link in the invitation email you received which will bring you to the submission/reviewing system. If you experience difficulties accessing the paper, you might Contact the section or journal manager.

 

How to log in and access your review

To access the paper and deliver your review, click on the link in the invitation email you received which will bring you to the submission/reviewing system. If you experience difficulties accessing the paper, you might Contact the section or journal manager.

 

The review process is based on the manuscript submitted by the editorial board (Word) onwards

In the review process, the reviewers should note the following;

1- Is the manuscript compatible with the journal's specialty?

2- Has the manuscript been previously published in another journal (for the information of reviewers)?

3- Do the title and summary of the manuscript agree with its content?

4- Are the abstract keywords sufficient and compatible with the content?

5- Does the manuscript introduction include previous studies that are relevant and recent to the subject of the manuscript?

6- Is the method and procedures appropriate and were they presented in a clear and sequential manner?

7- Is the presentation of the results good, clear and understandable?

8- Are the tables and figures clear, necessary, sufficient, not confusing, and consistent with the title and content?

9- Is the discussion clear, logical, critically appraise the outcomes, and relevant to the findings of the manuscript?

10- Is the citation and References clear, appropriate, and consistent with the MDJ journal style?

11- Should some paragraphs of the manuscript be amended, clarified, or excluded because they are unclear or unimportant?

12- Is the number of words of the manuscript appropriate and compatible with the content?

13- Ethical considerations, Experiments including patient or animal data should properly be documented. Most journals require ethical approval by the author’s host organization. Please check MJS-specific guidelines for such cases.

 

-Confidentiality

Manuscripts under peer review should be strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscripts or discuss their content with anyone outside the peer review process.

Reviewers may, on request, consult with colleagues from their research group trusting that the confidentiality of the manuscript is maintained. Reviewers should first contact MDJ or the Editor in Chief and note the name of the colleague(s) in the ‘Comments to the editor section of their report.

 

Conflicts of interest

Reviewers should decline to review a submission when they:

1- Have a financial interest in the subject of the work.

2- Have previously discussed the manuscript with the authors.

3- Feel unable to be objective

 

-Final Recommendation: Reviewers should choose one of the following options:

 

1- Submission accepted: ready for publication without editing.

2- Revisions Required: Require minor changes that the editor can review and accept.

3- Resubmission for review: Requires major changes and another round of peer review.

4- The submission was rejected: it contains many weaknesses and cannot be accepted for publication.

 

-Reviewers’ response:

The reviewer should use word track changes in the word document to make edit or comments for the manuscript. In addition, report should be sent that precisely showing where the issue is in the manuscript that require editing.