Reviewers guide

The review process is an important aspect of the publication process of an article. It helps an editor in making decision on an article and enables the author to improve the manuscript.

Before accepting to review a manuscript, reviewers should ensure that the manuscript is within their area of expertise, and they can dedicate the appropriate time to conduct a critical review of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest (COI) exists when there is a divergence between an individual’s private interests and his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities such that a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual’s behavior or judgment was motivated by considerations of his or her competing interests.

Manuscripts are confidential materials given to a reviewer in trust for the sole purpose of critical evaluation. Reviewers should ensure that the review processes are confidential. Details of the manuscript and the review process should remain confidential during and after the review process.

It is unethical for reviewers to “use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.

Reviews should be honest and objective. Reviewers should not be influenced by:

  • The origin of the manuscript
  • Religious, political or cultural viewpoint of the author
  • Gender, race, ethnicity or citizenry of the author

In evaluating a manuscript, reviewers should focus on originality, contribution to the field, technical quality, clarity of presentation and depth of research

Reviewers should not rewrite the manuscript, however necessary corrections and suggestions for improvements should be made.

Reviewers should only accept manuscript that they are confident that they can dedicate appropriate time in reviewing. Thus, reviewers should review and return manuscripts in a timely manner.

Reviewers’ recommendation should be either:

  • Accept
  • Requires minor corrections
  • Requires moderate revision
  • Requires major revision
  • Not suitable for the journal. Submit to another publication such as (suggest a journal):
  • Reject

Recommendation should be backed with constructive arguments and facts based on the content of the manuscript.