[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Journal Information::
Articles archive::
For Authors::
For Reviewers::
Registration::
Contact us::
Site Facilities::
indexing and abstracting::
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
:: Reviewer guidelines ::
 | Post date: 2017/11/27 | 
Dear Reviewers:
Journal of Health Scinces and Technology had a double blind peer review policy.
What is peer review?
Peer review, also known as refereeing, is a collaborative process that allows manuscripts submitted to a journal to be evaluated and commented upon by independent experts within the same field of research. The evaluation and critique generated from peer review provides authors with feedback to improve their work and, critically, allows the editor to assess the paper’s suitability for publication in the journal. The peer review process does receive criticism and is not without its limitations; however, it still plays a fundamental role in helping to ensure published research is accurate, trustworthy, and meets the highest standards of research within a given field.
Writing a review: a step-by-step guide
As a reviewer, you will be notified by e-mail of an invitation to review a journal article. The e-mail will come embedded with hyperlink invitation responses.
1. Research the journal
  • Visit the journal homepage (on http://www.jhst.bums.ac.ir/) to get a sense of the journal’s published content and house style. This will help you in deciding whether the paper being reviewed is suitable for the journal or not.
  • Refer to the Instructions for Authors to check if the paper meets the submission criteria of the journal (e.g. length, scope, and presentation).
2. Write your report
The main factors you should provide advice on as a reviewer are the originality, presentation, relevance, and significance of the manuscript’s subject matter to the readership of the journal.
Questions to have in mind when reading the manuscript (in no particular order):
  • Is the submission original?
  • Does the paper fit the scope of the journal?
  • Would the paper be of interest to the readership of the journal?
  • Does the paper help to expand or further research in this subject area?
  • Does it significantly build on (the author’s) previous work?
  • Do you feel that the significance and potential impact of a paper is high or low?
  • Is the paper complete? Is there an abstract or summary of the work undertaken as well as a concluding section?
  • Is the methodology presented in the manuscript and any analysis provided both accurate and properly conducted?
  • Are all relevant accompanying data, citations, or references given by the author?
  • Should it be shortened and reconsidered in another form?
  • Would you recommend that the author reconsider the paper for a related or alternative journal?
  • Is the submission in Standard English to aid the understanding of the reader? 
3. Provide detailed comments
  • Use the comment to the author as an opportunity to seek clarification on any unclear points and for further elaboration.
  • If you have time, make suggestions as to how the author can improve clarity, succinctness, and the overall quality of presentation.
  • Confirm whether you feel the subject of the paper is sufficiently interesting to justify its length; if you recommend shortening, it is useful to the author(s) if you can indicate specific areas where you think that shortening is required.
  • It is not the job of the reviewer to edit the paper for English, but it is helpful if you correct the English where the technical meaning is unclear.
  • A referee may disagree with the author’s opinions, but should allow them to stand, provided they are consistent with the available evidence.
  • Remember that authors will welcome positive feedback as well as constructive criticism from you.
Being critical whilst remaining sensitive to the author isn’t always easy and comments should be carefully constructed so that the author fully understands what actions they need to take to improve their paper. For example, generalized or vague statements should be avoided along with any negative comments which aren’t relevant or constructive.
 
4. Make a recommendation
Once you’ve read the paper and have assessed its quality, you need to make a recommendation to the editor regarding publication.  The specific decision types used by a journal will vary but the key decisions are:
  • Accept – if the paper is suitable for publication in its current form.
  • Minor revision – if the paper will be ready for publication after light revisions. Please list the revisions you would recommend the author makes.
  • Major revision – if the paper would benefit from substantial changes such as expanded data analysis, widening of the literature review, or rewriting sections of the text.
  • Reject – if the paper is not suitable for publication with this journal or if the revisions that would need to be undertaken are too fundamental for the submission to continue being considered in its current form.
 
 
 
View: 569 Time(s)   |   Print: 62 Time(s)   |   Email: 0 Time(s)   |   0 Comment(s)
::
مجله علوم و تکنولوژی بهداشت Journal of Health Sciences and Technology
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.21 seconds with 40 queries by YEKTAWEB 3735