1-Before you accept or decline an invitation to review considers the following matters. Respond to the invitation as soon as possible.

  • The request article matches with your expertise and then accepts.
  • Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond (COPE).
  • Before you accept, make sure you can meet the deadline.

2-If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.

3-To access the paper and deliver your review, click on the link in the invitation email you received which will bring you to the submission/reviewing system.

4-Methodology: If the manuscript you are reviewing is reporting an experiment, check the methods section first. The following cases are considered major flaws and should be flagged:

  • Unsound methodology
  • Discredited method
  • Missing processes
  • A conclusion drawn in contradiction to evidence reported in the manuscript

For analytical papers examine the sampling report, which is mandated in time-dependent studies. Once you are satisfied that the methodology is sufficiently robust, examine any data in the form of figures, tables, or images. Authors may add research data, including data visualizations, to their submission to enable readers to interact and engage more closely with their research after publication. Please be aware that links to data might therefore be present in the submission files. 

5- Please, preparation check list as follows:

  • Summarize the article in a short paragraph.
  • Give your main impressions of the article, including whether it is novel and interesting, whether it has a sufficient impact and adds to the knowledge base.
  • Ideally when commenting, do so using short, clearly-defined paragraphs and make it easy for the editor and author to see what section you’re referring to.
  • Assess whether the article conforms to the journal-specific instructions (guide for authors).
  • Give specific comments and suggestions about e.g. title, abstract: Does the title accurately reflect the content? Is the abstract complete and stand-alone?
  • Check the graphical abstracts.
  • Carefully review the methodology, statistical errors, results, conclusion/discussion, and references.
  • Consider feedback on the presentation of data in the article, the sustainability and reproducibility of any methodology, the analysis of any data and whether the conclusions are supported by the data.
  • Raise your suspicions with the editor if you suspect plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns, providing as much detail as possible. Visit AMECJ’s ethics page or consult the COPE guidelines for more information.
  • Be aware of the possibility for bias in your review. Unconscious bias can lead us all to make questionable decisions which impact negatively on the academic publishing process. 

 

6-you must make a recommendation for review of manuscript, it is worth considering the categories the editor will likely use for classifying the article:

  • Reject (explain your reasoning in your report)
  • Accept without revision
  • Revise – either major or minor (explain the revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether you would be happy to review the revised article). If you are recommending a revision, you must furnish the author with a clear, sound explanation of why this is necessary.

7- Submitted your recommendation for review of manuscript to AMECJ and send for you a certificate for reviewing in AMECJ.

Contact us

Twitter, Inc.

Madadkaran Alley,Farjam St., Shahnazari Ave, Mirdamad, 

Tehran, Iran     P: 1545653718

Publisher: AMECJ