REVIEWERS

Evaluating a manuscript authored by a fellow researcher is both an honor and a demanding task. Given the considerable time investment required, the Editorial Board of SJUOZ, along with its authors and readership, greatly values your commitment to undertaking this essential role. SJUOZ employs a double-blind peer-review system designed to uphold efficiency, impartiality, and the publication of high-caliber research. To sustain this standard, the journal relies on knowledgeable reviewers capable of delivering thorough and Constructive Feedback within Approximately Two to Three Weeks. The continued excellence of SJUOZ as a scholarly publication hinge on the expertise, objectivity, fairness, and depth of insight demonstrated by its reviewers in assessing submitted manuscripts.

REVIEWERS' RESPONSIBILITIES

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

  1. Reviewing manuscripts critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their work.
  2. Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary.
  3. Providing all required information within established deadlines.
  4. Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal.
  5. Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest to the authors or the content of a manuscript they asked to review.
  6. Reporting possible research misconduct.
  7. Suggesting alternative reviewers if they cannot review the manuscript for any reason.
  8. Treating the manuscript as a confidential document.
  9. Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript.
  10. Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow, they identify the authors.
  11. Not identifying themselves as authors.
  12. Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer.
  13. Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work.
  14. Informing the editor if they find the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to their knowledge.
  15. Writing review report in English only.
  16. Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript. 

What aspects should be examined when evaluating a manuscript?

  1. Novelty.
  2. Originality.
  3. Scientific reliability.
  4. A valuable contribution to the science.
  5. Adding new aspects to the existed field of study.
  6. Ethical aspects.
  7. Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to the journal authors' guidelines.
  8. References provided to substantiate the content.
  9. Grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
  10. Scientific misconduct.