Reviewers Guidelines

Reviewers evaluate article submissions for specific scopes based on the requirements of that journal, predefined criteria, and quality, completeness and accuracy of the article. They provide feedback on the article and the research, suggest improvements and make a recommendation to the editor about whether to accept, reject or request changes to the article.

If you accept to take part in the review process of an article, you must treat the article you receive as a confidential document. This means you are not allowed to share them with anyone.

First read the article and then take a break from it, giving you time to think. Consider the article from your perspective. You should make sure you know what the journal is looking for and have a copy of any specific reviewing criteria you need to consider.

Your reviews are extremely important to the editorial process and quality of the journal. A well-done review is also important to guide authors in revising their work and help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive and should not include any personal remarks or personal details, including your name.

Content of the Review.

  • Your review should focus on the content of the manuscript (for grammar or punctuation or rewriting and reorganizing it, we have editors and copy editors who will do that). If there are numerous typos and grammatical errors, or you feel the organization is incorrect, it will suffice to just note that.
  • We are interested in manuscripts that reflect the 'state of the science' and its importance. Consider if the content is accurate and up to date. Is the topic something that would be of interest to most scholars
  • Is there anything the author didn't include but should have?
  • If you recommend that the manuscript be revised, it's important that you provide detailed comments to guide the author on the review form in the comments section. Note what should they do to fix the paper to make it acceptable. Should they add details or additional content, replace sources?
  • If you recommend that the manuscript be rejected, your narrative should indicate why, but do not spend unnecessary time on a fatally flawed manuscript.
  • If you suggest the author add content, please indicate how the author should better focus the manuscript or where to cut. 
  • If you suspect plagiarism, fraud or other ethical issues, share your suspicions with the editor, providing as much detail as possible

Writing Comments

Please write your comments in a nonjudgmental style. Begin with the positives if possible. If you believe the manuscript should be revised, please be encouraging and specific in your comments. Refrain from disparaging, critical remarks that aren't constructive.


All submitted reviews are confidential and are the property of MJSc and may not be submitted for dissemination or publication elsewhere.

Manuscripts should be treated as confidential material. If you want to solicit the expertise of another colleague to review it, please contact Editorial before doing so.

Please delete the manuscript once your review is completed. We recommend that you keep a copy of your review form for three months.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us.

MJSc sincerely invites you to join our peer-review program. By participating, you will provide help to authors from all over the world and will supply them with your ideas and suggestions based on your valuable expertise.

Interested in joining a peer-reviewer in this journal? We recommend that you review the About the Journal page, as well as the Peer Reviewing Process.

If you are ready to be a volunteer, please register with the journal prior to joining the peer-review program or, if already registered, can simply log in.

For further information please contact us.