Guidelines for Reviewers
Guidelines for Reviewers
The potential reviewers are expected to take heed of the following guidelines:
1. That the “Journal of Maritime Science and Technology” (JMST) is a multidisciplinary Journal devoted to the publication of original research papers, review articles and short communications. The Journal will only accept the publication of those manuscripts winning the most favourable recommendations from the reviewers. The recommendations on the scale below will be of great help. The name of the reviewer will be treated confidentially.
2. Major points to be considered in the review are:
a) The work must be original and represent a significant contribution.
b) The experimental design and methodologies used must be satisfactory.
c) Conclusions must be based upon an adequate number of tests with appropriate statistical evaluation (if applicable).
d) The manuscript must be clearly and concisely written with correct grammar and word usage.
e) The organization must be economical. The presentation of data should be adequate and the quality of figures should be high. Make specific suggestions for combining, condensing or deleting tables and figures.
f) The appropriate and pertinent references should be cited.
3. Negative results are not acceptable for publication unless there is some compelling scientific significance to such findings.
4. Reviewers’ other comments on the manuscript (any other comments are accepted).
Important Checklists for Reviewers
Reviewers are expected to provide advice on the following points in their review reports:
i. Is the work novel and of high standards?
ii. What are the main findings of the paper? Is relevant work of other authors in the field appropriately acknowledged and references given to the previous literature?
iii. Do the experimental data support the declarations? If not, what other evidence may prove fruitful?
iv. What kind of readers would benefit from the manuscript and why?
v. In what further directions would it be feasible to take the current research?
vi. Is the manuscript written comprehensively enough to be understandable? If not, how could it be improved?
vii. Have adequate proofs been provided for the declarations?
viii. Have the authors addressed the previous findings fairly?
ix. Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology to reproduce the experiments?
Evaluation of the manuscript
Upon evaluation the reviewer should assert whether the manuscript should be:
i. Accepted as it is
ii. Acceptable after the minor changes suggested.
iii. Acceptable after revisions and re-evaluation.
iv. Revised to Short Communication.