Reviewer Guidelines

The primary objective of peer review is to ascertain whether a submitted manuscript is worth publishing and to improve its quality. MIJST is deeply indebted to you for the time and expertise you contribute to this essential scientific step.

MIJST adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct. We operate a double-blind review process: author and reviewer identities are kept confidential.

1 General Guidelines

Objectivity: Criticize the science, not the scientist. Avoid personal criticism.
Conflicts of Interest: Decline reviews where competitive or collaborative relationships exist.
Confidentiality: Do not discuss unpublished manuscripts or use the information in your own work.
Anonymity: Ensure your comments do not serve as clues to your identity.

2 Submitting Your Review

Comments to the Editor
Submitted to the Executive Editor and Editor-in-Chief only. Include any potential conflicts of interest here.

Comments to the Author
Design these to be constructive. Identify strengths, weaknesses, and provide supporting arguments/references.

3 Points to Consider in Your Review

• Appropriateness for Journal scope

• Clarity of title, abstract, and keywords

• Conciseness and flow of writing

• Scientific soundness of methodology

• Ethical approvals and consent

• Statistical analysis and justification

• Consistency of data and conclusions

• Accuracy of tables and figures

Research & Publication Misconduct

Please alert the editorial team if you suspect:

Plagiarism or redundant publication.
Fabricated or manipulated data.
Undeclared competing interests.

Assistance and Clarification

Please contact the Section Editor who assigned the task if you need any clarification or technical assistance during the review process.

Reviewer Guidelines