Reviewers

Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is a privilege. However, it is a time-consuming responsibility. Hence, JUPSD’s Editorial Board, authors, and audiences appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedication. JUPSD adheres to a single-blind peer-review process that is rapid, fair, and ensures a high quality of papers published. In so doing, JUPSD needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turn around time of about 2 weeks. Maintaining JUPSD as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts.

 

REVIEWERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES

 

(http://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf)

 

If JUPSD’s Editor-in-Chief has invited you to review a manuscript, please consider the following:

 

Reviewing manuscript critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their work

Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary

Providing all required information within established deadlines

Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal

Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review

Reporting possible research misconducts

Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reasons

Treating the manuscript as a confidential document

Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript

Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow they identify the authors

Not identifying themselves to authors

Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer

Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work

Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge

Writing review report in English only

Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript 

 

 

WHAT SHOULD BE CHECKED WHILE REVIEWING A MANUSCRIPT?

 

Novelty

Originality

Scientific reliability

Valuable contribution to the science

Adding new aspects to the existed field of study

Ethical aspects

Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines

References provided to substantiate the content

Grammar, punctuation and spelling

Scientific misconduct