Reviewer Guidelines

Thank you for agreeing to review a manuscript for UZJEST. Your expertise ensures the quality and integrity of published research. Please follow these guidelines when evaluating submissions.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review is essential to:

  • Ensure the validity, originality, and significance of research
  • Provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their work
  • Maintain the academic standards of UZJEST

2. Review Process & Timeline

  • Reviewers are expected to complete their assessment within 2–4 weeks (unless otherwise agreed)
  • If you cannot meet the deadline or assess the manuscript, notify the editor immediately
  • All reviews should be submitted via the journal's online submission system

3. Confidentiality & Ethical Considerations

  • Treat manuscripts as confidential documents. Do not share or discuss them without permission
  • Avoid conflicts of interest (e.g., personal, financial, or professional ties to authors)
  • Maintain impartiality—evaluate submissions based on academic merit, not personal bias

4. Evaluation Criteria

Assess the manuscript based on the following:

A. Originality & Significance

  • Does the paper present new findings or a novel perspective?
  • Is the research relevant to the journal's scope?

B. Methodology & Data Analysis

  • Are the methods appropriate and well-described?
  • Is the data analysis rigorous and statistically sound (if applicable)?

C. Clarity & Structure

  • Is the paper well-organized (abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion)?
  • Are figures, tables, and references properly formatted and clear?

D. Ethical Compliance

  • Does the study follow ethical guidelines (e.g., human/animal research approvals)?
  • Are sources properly cited to avoid plagiarism or redundant publication?

5. Writing the Review Report

Your review should include:

  1. Summary – Briefly describe the paper's objectives and key findings
  2. Major Strengths – Highlight what works well
  3. Major Weaknesses – Identify areas needing improvement
  4. Specific Recommendations – Provide clear, actionable feedback
  5. Decision Recommendation – Choose one:
    • Accept as is (rare)
    • Minor revisions (accept after small corrections)
    • Major revisions (requires substantial changes)
    • Reject (if unsuitable for the journal)

6. Final Notes

  • Be professional and constructive—avoid harsh or dismissive comments
  • If recommending rejection, provide justifiable reasons
  • The editor may consider your feedback when making the final decision

Contact Information

Editorial Office, UZJEST
Email: jet@zu.edu.ly 
Website: https://journals.zu.edu.ly/index.php/UZJEST/index