Instructions for reviewers

Al-Mutawassit Journal for Reference Studies and Research (MJRSR) utilizes a Double-Blind Peer Review system to ensure objectivity and integrity in the evaluation of submitted research. Reviewers are crucial to the publication process, lending their expertise to uphold the journal’s scientific and ethical standards.

1. Reviewer Role and Ethical Responsibilities

  1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Reviewers provide expert scientific evaluation that aids the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board in making the final decision: acceptance, rejection, or required revision.

  2. Confidentiality: All submitted manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not show or discuss the manuscript with others, nor use any information or data contained within it for personal gain.

  3. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must immediately notify the Editorial Office of any potential Conflict of Interest (financial, personal, or institutional) related to the research or the authors. They must decline the review assignment if a real conflict exists.

  4. Timeliness: Reviews must be completed within the specified timeframe. If a deadline cannot be met, the reviewer must immediately inform the Editorial Office to withdraw or request an extension.

2. Review Procedure and Requirements

A. Accepting the Review Assignment

  • Competence: A reviewer should only agree to review a manuscript if it falls within their precise scientific specialty and expertise.

  • Double-Blind Check: Reviewers must ensure they are not able to identify the authors' identity from the manuscript (even if the double-blind status was accidentally compromised) and must report any such findings to the Editorial Office.

B. Submitting the Report

The review report must be clear, objective, and scientifically sound, comprising two main sections:

  1. Confidential Comments for the Editorial Board: This section is NOT shared with the authors. It should contain the reviewer's overall assessment of the research's significance and reliability, and their final recommendation (Accept, Reject, Revise).

  2. Comments for the Authors: This is the section that will be sent to the authors, and it must be:

    • Constructive and Courteous: Offer clear, specific critical observations in a professional and helpful manner.

    • Objective and Specific: Reference page or line numbers when pointing out a specific issue in the manuscript.

3. Core Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers must assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:

Criterion

Key Evaluation Questions

Originality & Significance

Does the research offer a novel scientific contribution? Are the findings important and relevant to the scientific community?

Methodological Rigor

Has the methodology been described adequately? Are the sample and research tools appropriate and replicable?

Data Analysis

Were the correct statistical or analytical methods used? Has the data been interpreted accurately and logically?

Results and Discussion

Does the discussion logically align with the results? Are the findings appropriately compared against previous studies?

Manuscript Structure & Organization

Is the paper logically structured (Introduction, Methods, Results, Conclusion)? Are the sub-headings clear?

Writing Quality and Language

Is the language clear, precise, and free of grammatical or mechanical errors?

References and Citations

Are the references current and relevant? Does the manuscript strictly adhere to the APA 7th edition documentation style?

Ethics

Are there any ethical concerns regarding human subjects, data handling, or undeclared conflict of interest?

4. Final Recommendations

At the end of the review report, the reviewer must provide a clear recommendation from one of the following categories:

  1. Accept: For manuscripts that require no substantive revisions.

  2. Minor Revisions: For manuscripts that can be published after minor, quick amendments approved by the editor.

  3. Major Revisions: For manuscripts requiring substantial work (e.g., re-analyzing data, methodological changes, rewriting major sections) and must be re-reviewed.

  4. Reject: For manuscripts with significant methodological flaws, a lack of originality, or those that fall outside the journal's scope.