Guidelines for Reviewers

The Researchers Journal of Science and Technology is very much committed to publishing high quality research outcomes within the briefest achievable time. To achieve this objective, the assistances/contributions of reviewers in the peer-review process are worthwhile.

The contributions of Reviewers to academic excellence cannot be overemphasized. When you accept an invitation to review for the journal, we acknowledge and express thanks to you in advance. Based on this, some level of accountability is undertaken by the Reviewers. Consequently, the below Guidelines will be very useful to the Reviewers.

  1. Misuse of manuscript under review: Citing, exploitation of manuscript under review by the reviewer is forbidden. Reviewers are not permitted to cite a manuscript or refer to the manuscript under review before it has been published. They are also advised to refrain from using the information contained in the manuscript for the advancement of their own research work.
  2. A reviewer should conscientiously adopt a constructive and independent attitude towards the manuscript under review. Reviewers should be friendly with the authors, with the aim of promoting effective, accurate and excellent scientific communication.
  3. Manuscript should be returned to the editor instantly if the reviewer could not assess the article neutrally.
  4. The editor is grateful when he/she receives a reviewer's recommendations. However, since the editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from a number of sources, a reviewer should not expect the editor to take his or her entire recommendations.
  5. Timeous completion of review:  A Reviewer is expected to complete the review of articles as timely and expeditiously as possible within two weeks. If the reviewer cannot complete the review within the specified time, reviewer should inform the editor and if possible request for additional time.  
  6. Reviewer-Author discussion during manuscript review is not allowed. The Editor-in-Chief or the Editor should be contacted first if need arises.
  7. Manuscript Acceptance: Reviewers are compassionately advised not make any precise declaration/statement about the acceptation of a paper in his comments for transmission to the author, but should advise the editor appropriately.
  8. Reviewers’ constructive and evidenced based criticisms, arguments, and suggestions well documented about a paper will be useful to the editor.
  9. Reviewers may not correct mistake/s in grammar, but any help in this regard will be appreciated.

Template for Technical Review

  1. Scientific reliability and originality of the article
  2. The objectives of the article should be met known
  3. Is the title suggestive of the article’s content?
  4. The Justification of research should be stated clearly
  5. Is the abstract composed of introduction, significance, results and discussion and conclusion in brief?
  6. The article should be appropriately organized and the headings should reflect the contents
  7. To ensure replication, use of established and standard methods in the research work is expected
  8. Is the Research question(s) plainly and objectively addressed?
  9. Are the References up to date, satisfactory and relevant? Any glaring omissions?
  10. Is the International Ethical guidelines followed in the article?
  11. Is the writing clear, readable and understandable?
  12. Is the style of writing satisfactory?
  13. Are the tables and figures relevant with clear legends and titles?
  14. Are the results discussed in relationship with related documented literatures?