Review a Journal Manuscript

Before You Agree to Review
When invited to review a journal article, case study, or book proposal, you'll receive an email with the option to accept or decline. Before making your decision, consider the following:

1- Time Commitment
High-quality reviews require thorough analysis and detailed feedback. If you're uncertain about your availability, it’s perfectly acceptable to suggest a qualified colleague or indicate your interest in reviewing at a later date.

2- Subject Expertise
You are best placed to determine whether the manuscript aligns with your area of expertise. Ensure your UJISBA's OJS profile is up to date with accurate keywords and affiliations to help editors match you with relevant submissions.

3- Deadlines
Response times vary by journal. It’s courteous to acknowledge the invitation promptly, even if you're unsure about accepting. Specific deadlines will be outlined in the invitation.

4- Conflicts of Interest
Disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as:
• Working in the same department as the author(s)
• Previous co-authorship
• Financial or professional ties to the research
Transparency allows editors to make informed decisions.

 

The Review Process
How to Access the Manuscript
If you accept the review, the manuscript will be available through your Reviewer Panel on the editorial OJS system, accessible via the invitation email.

Completing the Review
You’ll be asked to answer specific questions designed to evaluate all aspects of the manuscript.

 

Important Considerations During Review
Ethical Integrity
As a reviewer, you are expected to report any suspicions of:
• Plagiarism
• Data fabrication
• Defamation or libel

All review materials are strictly confidential. Do not share manuscripts or peer review reports with others, or upload them to AI tools or Large Language Models (LLMs), such as for editing or analysis. This practice violates confidentiality, breaches data privacy, and undermines the integrity of peer review. In accordance with UJISBA’s and COPE’s ethical guidelines, reviewers remain solely responsible for the content and quality of their assessments.

 

What to Evaluate
1- Originality
• Does the manuscript present new and valuable insights?
• Does it contribute to existing knowledge?
• Are the research questions timely and significant?

2- Title & Abstract
• Does the title clearly reflect the article’s content and include key terms?
• Is the abstract accurate, structured, and reflective of the full article?

3- Introduction
• Does it clearly define the research objectives?
• Has the author provided a relevant literature context and highlighted any gaps?

4- Methodology
• Is the design appropriate to address the research question?
• Are methods clearly described and reproducible?
• Was the sampling suitable and data collection explained thoroughly?

5- Statistical Analysis
Check all statistical elements carefully, as errors are common.

6- Results
• Are the findings presented clearly and logically?
• Is the analysis appropriate and justified?

7- Discussion & Conclusion
• Are the conclusions supported by the results?
• Does the discussion link back to the literature and broader implications?

8- Tables, Figures, and Visuals
• Are they clear, accurate, and well-labelled?
• Do they meaningfully support the narrative?

9- Language and Clarity
• Is the manuscript clearly written and easy to follow?
• If the language quality is poor, recommend editorial support rather than correcting it yourself.

10- Implications
Does the paper demonstrate:
• Practical or commercial impact?
• Contributions to teaching or policy?
• Societal relevance?
• Advancement of theoretical understanding?

11- Communication Quality
Evaluate whether the article’s message is communicated effectively to the journal’s target readership, using appropriate academic language and structure.

 

Making Your Recommendation
After reviewing, you will be asked to make an overall recommendation, such as:
• Accept
• Minor Revisions*
• Major Revisions*
• Reject

*Minor Revisions
Typically involve small adjustments, such as formatting, reference updates, minor clarification of findings, or enhancing compliance with submission guidelines.

*Major Revisions
These usually require substantial changes, including:
• Methodological improvements
• Additional data collection or analysis
• Revising the research question
• Deepening theoretical discussion