REVIEWERS PAGE

Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is a privilege. However, it is a time-consuming responsibility. Hence, IJHST’s Editorial Board, authors, and audiences appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedication. IJHST adheres to a double-blind peer-review process that is rapid, fair, and ensures a high quality of articles published. Therefore, IJHST needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turn around time of about 30 days. Maintaining IJHST as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts.

REVIEWERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES

(http://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf)

If IJHST’s Editor-in-Chief has invited you to review a manuscript, please consider the following:

1. Reviewing manuscript critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their work
2. Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary
3. Providing all required information within established deadlines
4. Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal
5. Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review
6. Reporting possible research misconducts
7. Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reasons
8. Treating the manuscript as a confidential document
9. Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript
10. Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow they identify the authors
11. Not identifying themselves to authors
12. Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer
13. Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work
14. Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge
15. Writing review report in English only
16. Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript 

WHAT SHOULD BE CHECKED WHILE REVIEWING A MANUSCRIPT?

1. Novelty
2. Originality
3. Scientific reliability
4. Valuable contribution to the science
5. Adding new aspects to the existed field of study
6. Ethical aspects
7. Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines
8. References provided to substantiate the content
9. Grammar, punctuation and spelling
10. Scientific misconduct

Selected Reviewers