Guidelines for Reviewers

The Responsibility of the Peer Reviewer

As a peer reviewer for IJMET, your role is to critically evaluate manuscripts within your expertise and provide respectful, constructive, and honest feedback. Highlight strengths, suggest improvements, and assess the manuscript's relevance and originality. Think of yourself as a quality control agent and a helpful guide all rolled into one.

Before Reviewing, Please Consider:

• Expertise Match: Does the manuscript fit your specialty? If not, kindly inform the editor and suggest alternative reviewers if possible.
• Time Availability: Reviews should ideally be completed within two weeks. If that's a problem, notify the editor ASAP and recommend another reviewer if you can.
• Conflicts of Interest: Disclose any conflicts upfront. Transparency helps keep the process fair and square.

Reviewing the Manuscript:

• Content Quality & Originality: Is the work novel and relevant? Does it push the field forward or just rehash old ground?
• Organization & Clarity:
  • Title: Clear and descriptive?
  • Abstract: Does it accurately summarize the paper?
  • Introduction: Clear problem statement and context?
  • Methods: Sufficient detail to replicate? Appropriate design?
  • Results: Logical, clear, and well-analyzed? Are the statistics sound?
  • Conclusion: Supported by data and properly contextualized?
  • Tables & Figures: Clear and informative?
• Scope: Is the article aligned with IJMET's aims and scope?

Article Types You May Encounter:

• Original Research: Novel data, experiments, and analyses.
• Reviews: Systematic summaries and critical evaluations of literature.
• Case Studies: Real-world problem-solving examples with lessons learned.
• Perspectives & Viewpoints: Unique insights or commentary on relevant topics.
• News & Technology Insight: Updates on innovations and trends.

Final Notes:

• All reviews are confidential. Please don't discuss manuscripts with third parties without editor approval.
• Do not contact authors directly.
• Report ethical concerns such as plagiarism, fraud, or ethical breaches in human/animal research to the editor immediately.
• Complete your review thoughtfully and submit it on time. Your input strongly influences editorial decisions and improves scientific quality.