Instructions for reviewers

Thank you for agreeing to review a manuscript for the Al-Mutawassit Journal for Basic and Applied Sciences (MJBAS). Your expert contribution is essential to maintaining the high standards of scientific quality and integrity of our journal.

1. Ethical Responsibilities and Confidentiality

MJBAS operates a Double-Blind Peer Review process. You must adhere strictly to the following ethical guidelines:

  • Confidentiality: The manuscript you receive is a privileged document. You must not share the manuscript or discuss its contents with anyone. The manuscript must not be retained or copied.

  • Anonymity: Do not reveal your identity to the author(s) at any point during or after the review process. Similarly, if you suspect or deduce the identity of the author(s), this must not influence your review.

  • Timeliness: Please commit to completing your review within the agreed-upon deadline. If you cannot meet the deadline, please inform the editorial office immediately so the manuscript can be reassigned.

  • Conflict of Interest: If you have any financial, professional, or personal conflict of interest that might bias your review (e.g., you are a competitor, work in the same institution, or have a collaboration with the author), you must notify the Editor-in-Chief immediately and decline the invitation.

2. The Review Process

Your primary role is to provide a constructive, unbiased, and objective critical evaluation to help the Editor-in-Chief make a fair decision and to assist the author(s) in improving their work.

A. Initial Assessment

  • Scope: Does the manuscript fit within the scope of Basic and Applied Sciences as published by MJBAS?

  • Originality: Does the paper present novel findings, methods, or perspectives?

  • Plagiarism: Report any suspicion of plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical misconduct directly to the Editor-in-Chief.

B. Evaluation Criteria

Please evaluate the manuscript based on the following scientific criteria:

  1. Scientific Soundness and Clarity: Are the paper's central hypothesis, objectives, and conclusions clearly stated? Is the manuscript well-written, logically structured, and easy to understand?

  2. Methodology: Are the materials, methods, and experimental design described in sufficient detail to allow other researchers to replicate the work? Are the methods appropriate for the research questions asked?

  3. Results: Are the results presented clearly and accurately (including figures and tables)? Are the statistical analyses appropriate and correctly interpreted?

  4. Discussion: Does the discussion section effectively interpret the results in the context of existing literature? Are the conclusions justified by the data presented?

  5. References: Are the citations current and relevant? Are they formatted correctly according to the journal's APA 7th edition style?

3. Making a Recommendation

Your final review should include a confidential section for the Editor (including your reasoning) and a constructive comments section for the Author(s).

Choose one of the following recommendations for the Editor-in-Chief:

  • Accept: The paper is ready for publication without changes.

  • Minor Revisions: The paper is suitable for publication after making small corrections.

  • Major Revisions: The paper requires substantial restructuring, new analysis, or significant clarification, and must be re-reviewed.

  • Reject: The paper is fundamentally flawed, out of scope, or represents insufficient scientific progress, and should not be published in MJBAS.

We thank you once again for your dedication to scholarly publishing. Please contact the editorial office if you have any questions