Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer plays an essential role in the peer review process. Efforts of reviewers are the key for the objectives of a fair and timely review process for all of our manuscripts and the publications of only papers of the highest quality. We greatly appreciate reviewers for their help with meeting these important objectives.

Fairness of Review

Reviewers shall regard a submitted manuscript as a privileged and confidential document and not meant to be public, and so should not use, share or disclose unpublished information in a manuscript except with the permission of the authors. The review process shall ensure that all authors have equal opportunity for publication of their papers.


Conducting the Review

To review an article in JET, the reviewer is expected to evaluate the article according to the following:


Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the article adhere to the journal’s standards? Is the research question an important one? To determine its originality and appropriateness for JET, it is helpful to think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in, e.g. considering whether it is in the top 30% of papers in the field.


Is the article clearly laid out? Are all the key elements (where relevant) present: abstract, introduction, method, findings and discussion, and conclusions? It is evaluate whether the manuscript conform to JET’s Guidelines and Template accessible in and consider each element in turn:

  • Title: Does it clearly describe the article?
  • Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
  • Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context and explain what other authors’ findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es), and the general experimental design or method.
  • Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
  • Finding and Discussion: This is where the author/s should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report.
  • Conclusion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
  • Language: If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, while it may make it more difficult to understand the science, you do not need to correct the English. You should bring this to the attention of the editor, however.

Finally, on balance, when considering the whole article, do the figures and tables inform the reader, are they an important part of the story? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they consistent, e.g. bars in charts are the same width, the scales on the axis are logical?

Previous Research

If the article builds upon previous research does it reference that work appropriately? Are there any important works that have been omitted? Are the references accurate?

Ethical Issues

  • Plagiarism: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible
  • Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor
  • Other ethical concerns: Has confidentiality been maintained? Has there been a violation of the accepted norms in the ethical treatment of human subjects? If so, then these should also be identified to the editor.

Communicating Your Report to the Editor

Once you have completed your evaluation of the article, please write up your report by overviewing your remarks under each of the following sections:

  • General Comment
  • Introduction
  • Method
  • Findings and Discussion
  • Conclusion and Suggestions
  • References
  • Other Comments

 Finally, please make your decision regarding the article by selecting one of the available recommendations:

  1. Accept Submission
  2. Revision Required
  3. Resubmit for Review
  4. Resubmit Elsewhere
  5. Decline Submission
  6. See Comments