Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewer Guidelines

Researchers Journal of Science and Technology (REJOST)

Published by the Faculty of Physical Sciences, Akwa Ibom State University, Nigeria

1. Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review is an essential part of maintaining the quality, credibility, and scientific integrity of the Researchers Journal of Science and Technology (REJOST). Reviewers are therefore expected to provide an independent and balanced assessment of each manuscript assigned to them.

The purpose of the review is not simply to identify errors or recommend rejection. Rather, it is to help determine whether a manuscript presents reliable and meaningful research and, where necessary, to guide the authors in improving the quality, clarity, and scientific value of their work.

Reviewers should approach every manuscript with fairness, professional judgment, and respect for the authors and their work.

2. Accepting or Declining a Review Invitation

Reviewers should accept an invitation only when the manuscript falls within their area of expertise and they are able to provide a meaningful assessment.

Before accepting the assignment, reviewers should consider:

1. whether the subject of the manuscript is within their area of competence;
2. whether they have sufficient time to complete the review within the requested period;

• whether any personal, professional, financial, institutional, or academic relationship could influence their judgment; and

1. whether they have recently collaborated with any of the authors or have a close relationship with them.

A reviewer should decline the assignment if there is a significant conflict of interest or if they do not possess the appropriate expertise. Declining a review should not be viewed negatively; it is preferable to decline an assignment than to provide an inadequate or biased assessment.

Where appropriate, a reviewer may recommend another qualified researcher, but the final decision to appoint a reviewer remains with the Editor.

 

3. Confidentiality of Manuscripts

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

1. share the manuscript or any part of it with another person without permission from the Editor;
2. discuss the contents of the manuscript with colleagues, students, or other researchers;

• use unpublished information, data, methods, results, or ideas obtained from the manuscript for personal or professional advantage; or

1. upload the manuscript or its contents to publicly accessible platforms or artificial-intelligence tools without explicit authorization from the journal.

The manuscript should be used only for the purpose of conducting the assigned peer review.

4. General Approach to Reviewing a Manuscript

Reviewers are encouraged to read the manuscript carefully and objectively. A useful review normally involves more than simply correcting grammar or identifying minor typographical errors.

The reviewer should consider the following broad questions:

1. Is the research relevant to the scope of the journal?
2. Does the study address a clearly defined scientific or technological problem?
3. Is the work sufficiently original or does it make a meaningful contribution to existing knowledge?
4. Are the methods appropriate for the objectives of the study?
5. Are the data adequately presented and analysed?
6. Are the conclusions supported by the results?
7. Are the figures, tables, equations, and references appropriate and accurate?
8. Is the manuscript sufficiently clear and logically organized?
9. Are there ethical, methodological, or scientific concerns that must be addressed before publication?

Reviewers should distinguish between major scientific problems and minor corrections. Not every weakness requires rejection. Where a problem can reasonably be corrected through revision, the reviewer should explain how the manuscript may be improved.

5. Specific Areas for Assessment

5.1 Title and Abstract

The title should accurately reflect the content of the manuscript and should be sufficiently clear and informative.

The abstract should:

1. clearly state the research problem or objective;
2. briefly describe the methods used;

• present the major findings;

1. highlight the main conclusion or significance of the study; and
2. avoid unsupported claims.

The reviewer should indicate whether the abstract accurately represents the content of the full manuscript.

5.2 Introduction

The introduction should establish the scientific background and explain why the study was undertaken.

Reviewers should consider whether:

1. the research problem is clearly presented;
2. sufficient and relevant literature has been discussed;

• the knowledge gap is clearly identified;

1. the objectives or research questions are clearly stated; and
2. the study is adequately justified.

A good introduction should move logically from the broader scientific problem to the specific purpose of the study.

 

5.3 Originality and Contribution to Knowledge

The reviewer should assess what the manuscript adds to existing knowledge.

The contribution may arise from:

1. new data;
2. a new method or analytical approach;

• a new interpretation of existing information;

1. a new application of an established technique;
2. a new geographical or environmental context;
3. confirmation or refinement of previous findings; or

• a meaningful interdisciplinary contribution.

Reviewers should avoid demanding novelty merely for its own sake. A well-designed study that provides reliable and useful evidence may make a valuable contribution even when it does not introduce an entirely new theory or technique.

5.4 Materials and Methods

The methods section should contain sufficient information to allow a qualified researcher to understand how the study was conducted and, where appropriate, reproduce the work.

Reviewers should examine:

1. the study design;
2. sampling procedures and sample size;

• instruments and equipment;

1. experimental or field procedures;
2. data quality-control measures;
3. analytical techniques;

• statistical methods;
• modelling procedures;

1. software and computational methods; and
2. ethical approval, where applicable.

If the methods are inadequate to support the results, the reviewer should clearly explain the problem.

Reviewers should not require authors to perform unnecessary experiments or analyses that are unrelated to the objectives of the study. However, additional analysis may be recommended where it is essential to support the main conclusions.

5.5 Results

The results should be presented clearly and should correspond to the stated objectives of the study.

Reviewers should check whether:

1. the results are logically organized;
2. the data are adequately described;

• tables and figures are necessary and properly presented;

1. numerical values are consistent throughout the manuscript;
2. statistical analyses are appropriate;
3. uncertainty or limitations are properly considered; and

• the results are not repeated unnecessarily in several sections.

Where possible, reviewers should identify inconsistencies between the text, tables, figures, supplementary material, and reported statistical values.

5.6 Discussion

The discussion should explain the meaning and significance of the findings rather than simply repeat the results.

Reviewers should consider whether the authors:

1. interpret the findings appropriately;
2. compare their results with relevant previous studies;

• explain agreements and disagreements with earlier research;

1. acknowledge the limitations of the study; and
2. avoid making claims that go beyond the evidence.

A strong discussion should connect the results to the research problem and explain why the findings matter.

5.7 Conclusions

The conclusions should follow logically from the results and discussion.

Reviewers should determine whether the conclusions:

1. directly address the objectives of the study;
2. are supported by the evidence presented;

• avoid exaggerated claims; and

1. clearly communicate the main contribution of the work.

Recommendations should be realistic and should arise from the findings rather than from unsupported assumptions.

5.8 Figures, Tables, Equations, and Supplementary Material

Figures and tables should contribute meaningfully to the manuscript.

Reviewers should check:

1. whether they are relevant and necessary;
2. whether they are clearly labelled;

• whether units and symbols are correctly used;

1. whether captions are sufficiently informative;
2. whether the data are consistent with the main text; and
3. whether the same information is unnecessarily repeated.

Equations should be mathematically correct, properly defined, and used consistently throughout the manuscript.

5.9 References

The references should be relevant to the subject of the manuscript and should adequately represent important work in the field.

Reviewers should consider whether:

1. key studies have been omitted;
2. citations are appropriate and accurately used;

• references cited in the text appear in the reference list;

1. references listed are actually cited in the manuscript; and
2. excessive or irrelevant self-citation is present.

Reviewers should not request the citation of their own publications merely to increase citation counts. A reference should be recommended only when it is genuinely relevant to the scientific argument.

6. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers have an important responsibility to help protect the integrity of the scientific record.

Reviewers should alert the Editor if they suspect:

1. plagiarism or substantial text duplication;
2. duplicate or simultaneous publication;

• fabrication or falsification of data;

1. inappropriate manipulation of figures or images;
2. serious ethical concerns involving human or animal research;
3. undisclosed conflicts of interest;

• suspicious or excessive self-citation; or
• other forms of research or publication misconduct.

Reviewers should not independently investigate or contact the authors about suspected misconduct. Such concerns should be reported confidentially to the Editor, who will determine the appropriate action.

7. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Because manuscripts under review are confidential, reviewers should not upload unpublished manuscripts, figures, datasets, or confidential reviewer reports to external artificial-intelligence systems unless the journal has expressly authorized such use and appropriate confidentiality safeguards are in place.

Any technological tool used during review should support, and not replace, the reviewer's own expert judgment.

The final review should represent the reviewer's independent scientific assessment.

8. Preparing the Review Report

A useful review report should be clear, respectful, specific, and evidence-based.

Reviewers are encouraged to structure their report as follows:

General Assessment

Begin with a brief overall assessment of the manuscript. State the main strength of the work and identify the most important issues that require attention.

Major Comments

Major comments should address issues that could significantly affect the validity, interpretation, or contribution of the manuscript.

Examples include:

1. weaknesses in the research design;
2. inadequate sampling;

• inappropriate statistical analysis;

1. insufficient methodological detail;
2. unsupported interpretation;
3. major inconsistencies in the data;

• conclusions that are not supported by the results; or
• substantial gaps in the scientific argument.

Each major comment should explain the problem clearly and, where possible, suggest a constructive way forward.

Minor Comments

Minor comments may include:

1. grammatical or typographical errors;
2. unclear sentences;

• incorrect units or symbols;

1. inconsistent terminology;
2. minor formatting problems; and
3. small corrections to tables, figures, or references.

Minor issues should not obscure the main scientific assessment.

9. Tone and Professional Conduct

A reviewer may be critical without being discourteous.

Reviewers should:

1. focus on the manuscript rather than the authors;
2. avoid personal, dismissive, or offensive language;

• provide evidence for criticism;

1. recognize the strengths of the work;
2. avoid making assumptions about the authors' competence or intentions; and
3. give clear recommendations for improvement.

For example, instead of writing:

“The authors clearly do not understand the method.”

A more appropriate comment would be:

“The methodological description is not sufficiently clear to establish how the procedure was implemented. The authors should provide additional information on the measurement conditions, processing steps, and quality-control procedures.”

The goal of peer review is to improve the scientific work, not to discourage researchers.

10. Recommendation to the Editor

After completing the review, the reviewer should provide a clear recommendation based on the scientific quality of the manuscript.

The available recommendations may include:

Accept

The manuscript is scientifically sound and requires no substantive revision.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is generally sound, but minor corrections or clarifications are required before publication.

Major Revision

The manuscript has potential for publication but requires substantial revision involving important methodological, analytical, interpretive, or structural issues.

Reject

The manuscript has fundamental problems that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision, or it falls outside the scope of the journal.

The recommendation should be supported by the comments provided in the review report. Reviewers should not recommend rejection solely because the study does not support a particular hypothesis or because the results differ from their own findings.

11. Confidential Comments to the Editor

Where the review system provides a confidential section for the Editor, reviewers may use it to raise issues that should not be communicated directly to the authors.

Such comments may include:

1. possible conflicts of interest;
2. concerns about research integrity;

• uncertainty regarding the suitability of the manuscript for the journal;

1. serious ethical concerns; or
2. other sensitive matters requiring editorial attention.

However, the main scientific reasons for the recommendation should normally be clearly communicated to the authors in the formal review report.

12. Timeliness of Review

Reviewers are encouraged to complete their reviews within the period specified by the journal.

If additional time is required, the reviewer should inform the Editor as early as possible. If the reviewer is unable to complete the review, the Editor should be notified promptly so that the manuscript is not unnecessarily delayed.

The journal recognizes that peer review is a voluntary academic contribution. Nevertheless, timely reviews are important for ensuring an efficient publication process.

 

13. Revised Manuscripts

When reviewing a revised manuscript, reviewers should focus particularly on whether the authors have adequately addressed the major concerns raised during the previous review.

The reviewer should:

1. assess the revised manuscript on its current merits;
2. check whether important corrections have been made;

• determine whether the authors have responded adequately to previous comments; and

1. identify any remaining issues that are essential for publication.

Reviewers should avoid introducing entirely new major criticisms during a later review unless the revised manuscript has revealed a genuinely new problem or the issue was not reasonably identifiable earlier.

Final Note to Reviewers

The quality of REJOST depends greatly on the care, fairness, and integrity of its reviewers. A strong review does not merely decide whether a manuscript should be published. It helps authors strengthen their research, helps editors make informed decisions, and helps readers receive reliable scientific knowledge.

We therefore sincerely appreciate the time, expertise, and professional judgment that reviewers contribute to the advancement of science and technology through the Researchers Journal of Science and Technology. The journal operates a peer-review process involving independent expert reviewers, with the editorial team making publication decisions based on the scientific assessment of submitted manuscripts.