Logo-jhp

For Reviewers

Information for Reviewers

Peer review is a leading factor utilized for the enhancement of high-quality scientific researches. Here are some guidelines which will result in facilitating peer reviewing as a necessary element of the paper publication progression. The invitation letter will be sent including information about the title and abstract of the manuscript and the time limit expected for review. Following reviewer acceptance, the manuscript will be accessible to the reviewer through his or her registration. Reviewers have access to the comments of other referees too. Reviewers will assess the novelty and technical accuracy of the paper's first draft. The core characteristics of the review will include:

  • The advancement of presented work over previous works.
  • Comments on the work and reasons for those comments.
  • Expression of strengths and weaknesses of the work, figures and statistical methods used for interpretation of data, and an indication of supplementary information.
  • Presentation of literature review.
  • Consideration of due audience.

Please take a look at the following ethical guidelines provided by COPE for editors and reviewers, too:
Flowcharts show how we behave with unethical papers
Redundant (duplicate) publication in submitted manuscript and published article
Suspected plagiarism in submitted manuscript and published article
Suspected fabricated data in submitted manuscript and published article
See more

Online review

All process of manuscript submission and review is carried out online. Upon acceptance of the invitation for manuscript review, s/he will register on the website as the reviewer and then will be given access to download the entire manuscript. After the reviewer, s/he may put his/her comments anew on the website. After submitting his/her review, s/he will get access to other reviewers’ comments, too.

Comments to the reviewers

  • Special comments on the manuscripts could be sent to editors if they are inappropriate to be declared to authors.
  • The comments sent to editors should be inconsistent level with those sent to authors.
  • A review in dedicated time will benefit the entire scientific community.
  • The manuscripts should be reviewed impartially and objectively.
  • Reviewers should decline to referee the manuscripts that are in the area of interest of the reviewer, is the financial interest of him or her, is a field that the reviewer is now working on, or if the reviewer has contacted the author recently. This information is uttered in the “request for review” e-mail sent to the reviewer; otherwise, after receiving the manuscript, the reviewer should inform the editor in order to inhibit subjective reviewing.
  • Information in manuscripts should be held confidential till the time of publication.
  • Reviewers should not use unpublished information in manuscripts as a resource in their researches.
  • In the case of accepting reviewing a manuscript, this is a request of the reviewers to re-review the future revisions of the manuscript. Of course, reviewing revisions will be handled by the editorial board as it is possible in order to restrict the extra burden on reviewers.
  • The identity of reviewers should not be declared to authors.