Reviewer Guidelines

Home \ About the Journal\ Reviewer Guidelines

Guidelines for Reviewers

Responsibility of the Reviewer:

A reviewer in the peer reviewing process has the responsibility to provide a coherent critical analysis of the manuscript assigned to her/him, in order to assist in the decision-making process conducted by the editors of the journal in publishing high-quality and profound research. In accepting the task of the double-blinded review of a manuscript, the reviewer is required to respond as soon as possible (either accepting or rejecting to review the manuscript), as well as providing the review in a timely manner. Late submission of reviews will cause undesirable prolonging of the publication process of the issue and the journal. While conducting the review of the manuscript assigned, the reviewer must also be familiar with the policies and ethics guidelines of NOONSJ.

First Things to Consider Before Reviewing:

In the case of accepting the invitation to review a manuscript, there are several issues you must consider before writing the review:

  1. Is this paper within your field of specialization? (if not then you must inform the editors of NOONSJ immediately for time management and re-assignment purposes)
  2. Is there any form of conflict of interest you are suspecting?
  3. Does the reviewing schedule suit your schedule? Will you be able to deliver the review exactly on time?
  4. Have you familiarized yourself with NOONSJ’ aims and scopes, and policy and ethics guidelines? (you may find them on the journal’ homepage).

For further questions on the reviewing process before you begin, please contact the editors on noonsjeditor@gmail.com

Reviewing Steps (components to be covered):

Serious attention must be paid by the reviewers to the assigned manuscript and, they should cover a review on the following elements:

  1. Read the whole manuscript thoroughly for the first time
  2. Check for the following:
  • The originality of the research paper (does it have an edge and a clear contribution in its field?)
  • The overall title of the manuscript (does the title make sense and it is clear with respect to the abstract and keywords chosen by the author(s)?)
  • Methodology (has the research adopted/created a methodological suggestion and toolkit that has been applied throughout the research in ways seen as innovative and interdisciplinary?)
  • Abstract and keywords (does it comply with the heading of the research paper and the adopted research question, methodology and results?)
  • Introduction (are the research problem, research question and sub-questions, as well as aims of the research and purpose clear for the leader and proven throughout the research?)
  • State of the art (has/have the researcher (s) provided a comprehensive state of the art with respect to the chosen topic? Does it show the gap the researcher (s) is/are trying to fill through the submitted manuscript?)
  • Results (are the results, findings clear and have they been addressed and analysed by the author? Do they refer back to the research questions and central concepts used since the introduction of the research?)
  • Analysis and Discussions/Justifications
  • Tables/Figures (visual aid and more)
  • References/citation/bibliography
  1. Your decision or recommendation:
    1. Rejected (Preferably to provide your justifications for this decision)
    2. Accepted (You need to provide your clear justifications for this decision)
    3. Accepted conditioned with changes (You need to provide your justification for this decision)