top of page


Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is both a privilege and a significant responsibility. The JUPSD Editorial Board, along with our authors and audiences, greatly values your willingness to undertake this important task. JUPSD adheres to a single-blind peer-review process, which is designed to be rapid, fair, and ensures the publication of high-quality papers. Consequently, we seek reviewers who can provide insightful and constructive feedback on submitted manuscripts within a turnaround time of approximately two weeks. The continued excellence of JUPSD as a scientific journal relies on reviewers who possess a high level of expertise and demonstrate objectivity, fairness, and thoroughness in their evaluations.






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


Review manuscripts critically but constructively and prepare 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 misconduct.

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

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 as 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 under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge.

Writing review reports in English only.

Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript.






Scientific reliability

A valuable contribution to the science

Adding new aspects to the existing 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

bottom of page