Reviewer Guidelines

This section provides guidance for reviewers participating in the peer review process of JMST. Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the scientific quality and integrity of the journal.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide objective, constructive, and unbiased evaluations
• Assess scientific quality, originality, and relevance
• Provide clear and detailed feedback

Confidentiality

All manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not share or use unpublished data for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers should avoid personal bias and maintain objectivity throughout the review process.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.

If a conflict exists, reviewers should decline the invitation.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess:

• Scientific rigor and methodology
• Clarity of presentation
• Validity of conclusions
• Relevance to the journal’s scope

Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should identify:

• Plagiarism or duplicate publication
• Ethical concerns related to human or animal studies
• Missing citations or inappropriate references

Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete reviews within the designated timeframe.

Delays should be communicated to the editorial office.

Reporting Guidelines

Reviewers are encouraged to consider whether manuscripts adhere to reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, or CARE.

Recommendation

Reviewers should provide a recommendation:

• Accept
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Reject

Final decisions are made by the editors.