Before reviewers accept or decline an invitation to review from JTS, consider the following questions:

- Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality review.

- Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.

-  Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work – before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.

Respond to the invitation as soon as you can – delay in your decision slows down the review process, whether you agree to review or not. If you decline the invitation, provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.

Before starting to comment the quality of the article

If  accepting , reviewers must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means reviewers can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, reviewers also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the Journal.

Reviewer’s review report

The review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. Giving reviewer’s overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential.

The comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including reviewers’ name.

Checklist

Give your main impressions of the article, including whether it is novel and interesting, whether it has a sufficient impact and adds to the knowledge base.

Point out any journal-specific points – does it adhere to JTS’s standards?

Give specific comments and suggestions, including about layout and format and references.

Nếu người phản biện nghi ngờ đạo văn, gian lận hoặc phát hiện nào khác, hãy nêu nghi vấn đó cho Tạp chí, cung cấp càng nhiều chi tiết càng tốt. Vui lòng truy cập Mục Đạo đức xuất bản của Tạp chí để tham khảo thêm.

 If reviewers suspect plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns, raise her /his suspicions with the editor, providing as much detail as possible. Visit JTS’s ethics site for more information.

According to JTS’s ethic policy, reviewers must treat any manuscripts that they are asked to review as confidential documents. Since peer review is confidential, they must not share the review or information about the review with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved. This applies both during and after the publication process.

Any suggestion that the author includes citations to reviewers’ (or their associates’) work must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing reviewers’ citation counts or enhancing the visibility of reviewers’ work (or that of their associates).

Recommendation of reviewers

When reviewers make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor most likely uses for classifying the article:

1)     Reject (explain reason in report)

2)    Accept without revision

3)  Revise – either major or minor (explain the revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not reviewers would be happy to review the revised article)

The final decision

The editor ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the article. JTS plays no part in this decision. The editor will weigh all views and may call for a third opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision. The online editorial system provides reviewers with a notification of the final decision. If this is not applicable, you can contact the editor to find out whether the article was accepted or rejected.