Reviewers Guide
This guide outlines the steps, expectations, and best practices for MSR reviewers. It is designed to ensure a thorough, constructive, and effecive review process.
Accepting Review Invitations
Before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript, please consider the following:
- Assess whether the manuscript aligns with your specific area of expertise and research interests.
- Ensure you have adequate time to conduct a detailed review within the specified deadline.
- Identify any potential conflicts of interest. If a conflict exists, it is essential to decline the review invitation.
Conducting the Review
Once you accept a review invitation, follow these steps to conduct a thorough evaluation:
Research the Journal
- Read through the contents of previously published articles of the MSR to get a sense of it’s published content and house style to decide whether the manuscript being reviewed is suitable for the journal or not.
- Refer to the MSR's submission guidelines to ensure the manuscript meets the submission criteria of the journal (e.g. length, scope, and style of presentation).
Evaluate the Manuscript
Assess the manuscript using the following criteria:
Scope of the Journal
Determine if the manuscript's content fit within the scope of the MSR?
Originality
Evaluate whether the manuscript presents novel findings that contribute significantly to existing knowledge in the subject area.
Structure
Title: Check if the manuscript's title is descriptive and suitable.
Abstract: Ensure it accurately reflects the content and includes relevant keywords.
Introduction: Determine if it clearly defines the research aims and context and provides a logical progression from prior research to the present study
Method: Verify that the research methods are well-described and appropriate. Ascertain that there is sufficient information (including the procedures followd and how the prodedures are ordered) to aid replication. New methods should be adequately explained.
Results: Confirm that findings are presented logically and clearly, and appropriate statistical analysis has been conducted.
Discussion: Evaluate wheter findings are interpreted clearly and contextualized within existing literature.
Conclusion: Ensure conclusions are supported by data and indicate advancements in scientific knowledge.
Check for relevance, sufficiency, and adherence to citation style (e.g., APA).References: Check references for relevance, sufficiency, and adherence to MSR's citation style (APA 7th edition).
Figures and Tables: Assess whether they are clear, informative, necessary, accurate, easy to interpret, and accurately represent the data.
Language
Ensure the manuscript is written in clear and grammatically correct English that aid understanding of the reader. Note any significant grammatical issues but do not correct them; instead, inform the editor if necessary.
Provide Detailed Comment
Your comments should aim to clarify and enhance the manuscript. Ensure feedback is:
Constructive: Focus on enhancing clarity, quality, and presentation.
Curteous: Avoid personal remarks. Address the manuscript, not the author.
Specific: Highlight strengths and areas for improvement, providing actionable suggestions.
Evidence-based: Support critiques with examples or data.
Note:
Keep comments anonymous and organized under headings (e.g., Major Comments, Minor Comments).
Make a Recommendation
After evaluating the manuscript, provide a recommendation to the editor from one of the following options:
Accept Submission: The manuscript is ready for publication with minimal changes; no further peer review needed.
Minor Revision: Small, specific improvements are needed (e.g., fixing typos, clarifying points); list specific revisions.
Major Revision: Substantial changes are required (e.g., additional data analysis, rewriting sections). The manuscript may undergo another round of peer review.
Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication, either due to fundamental revisions, lack of originality, major methodological flaws, or misalignment with journal scope.
Additional Considerations
Confidentiality
All submissions must remain confidential throughout the review process. Do not discuss any details with third parties without explicit permission from the editor.
Communication
Do not contact authors directly regarding their submissions; all communication should go through the editor.
Integrity of Recommendations
Your feedback will significantly influence editorial decisions; ensure it is constructive and well-supported by evidence.
Reporting Misconduct
If you suspect plagiarism or unethical practices (e.g., falsified results), notify the editor immediately with detailed evidence.