🔍 Reviewer Guidelines

🌟 Our Review Philosophy

At ARJST, we view peer review as a collaborative dialogue rather than a purely critical exercise. Our goal is to:

  • Mentor Authors: Provide constructive feedback that helps authors improve their work, even if the paper is not accepted.

  • Ensure Rigor: Validate that the methodology is sound and the conclusions are supported by evidence.

  • Promote Integrity: Detect potential ethical breaches, such as plagiarism or data manipulation.

⚖️ Ethical Expectations for Reviewers

Reviewers must adhere to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) standards:

  • 🕵️ Double-Blind Integrity: If you identify the author of a manuscript assigned to you, please notify the editor immediately to avoid a conflict of interest.

  • 🤫 Confidentiality: Manuscripts are confidential documents. Do not share, discuss, or use the data from an unpublished manuscript.

  • ⏰ Timeliness: If you cannot complete a review within 14–21 days, please inform the editor so we can reassign the paper and avoid delaying the author.

📋 Evaluation Criteria

When evaluating a submission, please focus on the following core pillars:

  1. Originality & Significance: Does the work contribute new insights to Science and Technology? Is the research question relevant to the journal’s scope?

  2. Methodological Soundness: Is the research design appropriate? are the variables clearly defined? Is the sample size sufficient for the conclusions drawn?

  3. Literature Context: Does the author demonstrate a deep understanding of existing research? Are the citations up-to-date and relevant?

  4. Clarity & Structure: Is the paper logically organized? Is the English language usage of a professional, academic standard?

  5. APA Compliance: Are the references and in-text citations correctly formatted according to APA 7th Edition?

🚦 The Reviewer’s Role in the Journey

Your evaluation is the most critical step in the “Decision” phase of the publishing lifecycle:

📝 Submitting Your Recommendation

After your evaluation, you will be asked to select one of the following:

  • ✅ Accept As Is: High-quality work requiring no changes.

  • 🔧 Minor Revision: Requires small corrections to text or citations.

  • 🔨 Major Revision: Requires significant structural or analytical changes.

  • ❌ Reject: The work has fundamental flaws or is out of scope.

🔗 Reviewer Resources