Guide of Reviewer


Contents
Ensuring Double Anonymity
Peer Review Process and Conflict of Interest Declaration
Understanding the Peer Review Structure
Conducting a Comprehensive Review
Identifying Major Issues
Drafting the Review Summary
Preparing for a Detailed Evaluation
Conduct Detailed Evaluation
Conducting a Detailed Assessment
Evaluating Section by Section
Structured Feedback
Reporting Concerns to Editors
Making Recommendations
Peer Review Overview
Review Revised Manuscripts
Promptness
Acknowledgment of sources Reviewers
Disclosure and conflict of interest

1- Ensuring Double Anonymity
As MJPS employs a double anonymized peer review process, reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of their identities and avoid revealing any personal information that could potentially identify them to the authors. This ensures fairness and impartiality throughout the review process. Reviewers should refrain from contacting authors directly and should communicate only through the journal’s designated channels to maintain anonymity.

2-Peer Review Process and Conflict of Interest Declaration
Upon receiving an invitation to review for MJPS, promptly respond and declare any potential conflicts of interest. Ensure that you have access to the manuscript provided for review.

3-Understanding the Peer Review Structure
MJPS follows a structured review format, similar to the guidelines provided for peer review. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts thoroughly, addressing specific questions and criteria outlined by the journal.

4-Conducting a Comprehensive Review
Start with an initial read-through of the manuscript, focusing on grasping the core research question, assessing originality, clarity, and coherence of the conclusions. Begin with empathy, understanding the main question addressed by the research, and evaluating its novelty and clarity.

5- Identifying Major Issues
While reviewing, pay close attention to significant flaws such as contradictory conclusions, flawed methodologies, or overlooked key aspects in the field. Provide clear evidence and reasoning for any major concerns identified.

6-Drafting the Review Summary
Summarize the research question and contribution of the work in the initial paragraphs of your review, adhering to MJPS’s formal reporting format. Offer insights on potential major flaws, aligning with the structured review format.
Even if considering rejection, conduct a full read-through to ensure fairness and identify positive aspects that can be communicated to the author. Offer detailed feedback on any major flaws discovered.

7-Preparing for a Detailed Evaluation
Organize your notes, grouping similar concerns or praises together to facilitate the review process. Ensure access to all necessary materials for a thorough evaluation.

8-Conduct Detailed Evaluation
Prepare for a second read-through by organizing your notes and grouping similar concerns or praises together. Check the argument construction, language clarity, and adherence to research best practices.

9-Conducting a Detailed Assessment
Perform a second read-through, focusing on the manuscript’s argumentation, language clarity, and adherence to research best practices, aligning with MJPS’s expectations. Follow examples provided for section-by-section evaluation.

10-Evaluating Section by Section
Evaluate each section of the manuscript systematically, including introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion, conclusions, references, plagiarism, and search engine optimization, referring to provided examples.

11-Structured Feedback
Adhere to MJPS’s prescribed report format, offering clear and constructive feedback in each section. Ensure professionalism, objectivity, and respectfulness in your review. Follow the peer review checklist for a thorough evaluation.

12-Reporting Concerns to Editors
Notify the editor of any ethical issues, plagiarism concerns, or other malpractices, following MJPS’s guidelines. Provide comprehensive comments and recommendations for improvement, adhering to ethical considerations and confidentiality.

13-Making Recommendations
Based on your evaluation, recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript, providing specific feedback for improvement in each case. Ensure alignment with MJPS’s editorial standards and policies, similar to the guidelines for making recommendations in the peer review process.

14-Peer Review Overview
Peer review is a crucial process ensuring the quality and validity of scholarly publications. By upholding ethical standards and providing insightful feedback, reviewers contribute significantly to the advancement of knowledge and research dissemination, similar to the role outlined in the peer review overview.

15- Review Revised Manuscripts (if applicable)
Assess revised manuscripts for changes requested in the original review. Ensure that any significant revisions have been adequately addressed. Provide feedback on the revised manuscript, focusing on the requested changes and overall improvement.

16-Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.

17-Acknowledgment of sources Reviewers
should identify cases in which relevant published work referred to in the paper has not been cited in the reference section. They should point out whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source. Reviewers will notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

18-Disclosure and conflict of interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the papers. Visit www.publicationethics.org to learn more about COPE, including ethical guidelines, flowcharts, and case studies.