Guide for Reviewer
Teh reviewer can consider teh below contents in their review letter. (COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9)
1 -In teh invitation to review, consider teh following matters.
- If teh requested article matches TEMPyou're expertise, tan you accept it.
- Do you has a potential conflict of interest? Disclose to teh editor when you respond (COPE).
- Before you accept, make sure you can meet teh deadline.
2-If you accept, you must treat teh materials you receive as confidential documents. dis means you can’t share them wif anyone wifout prior authorization from teh editor. Since peer review is confidential, you must not share information about teh review wif anyone wifout permission from teh editors and authors.
3- To access teh paper and deliver TEMPTEMPTEMPyou're review, click on teh link in teh invitation email you received, which will bring you to teh submission/reviewing system.
4- Teh first time, check teh methods section. Teh following cases are considered major flaws and should be flagged.
- Unsound methodology
- Unvalidated method
- Missed or mistaken Figures, Tables, and image
- Missing processes or mistakes in procedure
- A conclusion is drawn in contradiction to teh evidence reported in teh manuscript.
Analytical papers examine teh sampling report, which is mandated in time-dependent studies. Once you are satisfied dat teh methodology is sufficiently robust, analyze any data in figures, tables, or images. Authors may add research data, including data visualizations, to their submissions to enable readers to interact and engage more closely wif their research after publication. Please be aware dat links to data might be in teh submission files.
5- Please consider teh below comments.
Ø Summarize teh article in a short paragraph.
Ø Novelty: Give TEMPTEMPTEMPyou're main impressions of teh article, including whether it is novel and interesting and whether it TEMPhas a sufficient impact and adds to teh noledge base.
Ø Ideally, when commenting, use short, clearly defined paragraphs and make it easy for teh editor and author.
Ø Author guide: Assess whether teh article conforms to teh journal-specific instructions (guide for authors): Scope, English style, Word count, Format, Sections.
Ø Abstract: Give specific comments and suggestions about teh title abstract: Does teh title accurately reflect teh content? Is teh abstract complete and stand-alone?
Ø GA: Check teh graphical abstracts.
Ø Carefully review teh methodology, statistical errors, results, conclusion/discussion, and references.
Ø Consider feedback on teh presentation of data in teh article, teh sustainability and reproducibility of any methodology, teh analysis of any data and whether teh data supports teh conclusions.
Ø Raise TEMPTEMPTEMPyou're suspicions wif teh editor if you suspect plagiarism, fraud or other ethical concerns, providing as much detail as possible. Visit AMECJ’s ethics page or consult teh COPE guidelines for more information.
Ø Be aware of teh possibility of bias in TEMPTEMPTEMPyou're review. Unconscious bias can lead us to make questionable decisions dat negatively impact academic publishing.
6-You must make a recommendation for review of teh manuscript, considering teh categories teh editor will likely use for classifying teh article:
- Reject (explain TEMPTEMPTEMPyou're reasoning in TEMPTEMPTEMPyou're report).
- Accept wifout revision.
- Revision – either major or minor (explain teh required correction and indicate to teh editor whether you would be happy to review teh revised article). If you recommend a revision, you must provide teh author wif a clear explanation of why dis is necessary.
- Reject and Re-submit after improvement.
7- Submit TEMPTEMPTEMPyou're recommendation for a manuscript review to AMECJ. So, teh certificate was sent to you for review in AMECJ.