Press "Enter" to skip to content

Guidelines For Reviewers

Originality: Is the manuscript presents original and novel ideas/conclusions? Does the manuscript match the journal’s standard? Is the research providing significant information in the subject area to its readers? Before starting the review process, the reviewers should ask the above and the following questions:

  • Does the manuscript contain all the key elements: abstract, introduction, methods, results, conclusions and references?

  • Title: Does it clearly describe the manuscript?

  • Abstract: Does it reflects the content of the manuscript? Is it stand alone?

  • Introduction: Is research problem has been introduced precisely and its significance discussed? Are questions to be answered stated? Is the hypothesis clear and concise? Is relevant literature cited? Does citation provide a relationship of the research problem to the previous research?

  • Methods: Is the methodology sufficiently explained to enable replicating the results? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Are the statistical methods used appropriately applicable to the study? Does the manuscript make it clear what sort of data was recorded?

  • Results: Are results clear and logically organized? Does the research problem has been answered sufficiently? Where ever applicable are values statistically reported? Are figures and tables understandable, clear and depict the information correctly?

  • If the data is reported in tabular form, then the figure with the same data should not be reported and vice versa.

  • Discussion: Does it has substantial evidence(s) in support of the findings? Has hypothesis been revisited? Does the relevance of previous research data discussed? Is limitations of present study mentioned? Does the study suggest recommendations for further research?

  • Conclusion: Does the conclusion are clearly stated, relevant and valid? Does it explains the significance and impact of the findings in its area of study?

  • References: Are they organized in required style of the journal? Does the manuscript refer to previous literature appropriately?

Some additional suggestions

  • Summarize the manuscript in a short paragraph. This will reflect your understanding of the research.

  • When commenting clearly mention the section/ line number. It makes editor and author clearly understand that what section of the manuscript you are referring to.

  • Do not speculate on the findings and keep your comments strictly based on the finding of the manuscript.

  • Your language should be understandable by readers around the world.

  • If you suspect any plagiarism, fraud or any other ethical issue report to the editor.

  • If you feel any part of the manuscript is outside the area of your expertise please inform the editor.

  • If you have any other specific question, please contact the editor via email.

Ethical Obligations

  • The reviewer should give an unbiased review, solely based on the merits and demerits of the manuscript.

  • The reviewer should consider manuscripts submitted for publication with all reasonable speed and attention.

  • Contents of manuscript under review should not be used in the reviewer ‘s own research except with the consent of the author.

  • If manuscript is closely related to research of the reviewer and creates a conflict of interest, the editor should arrange some other reviewer.

  • The reviewer should not review the manuscript that is co-authored by himself, or a member of his/her institution or to someone to whom he is related.

  • An author may request the editor not use certain reviewers in consideration of a manuscript.

  • Reviewer must never ask anyone to review a portion of paper without editor’s consent.

Thank you reviewers!

AJEB is highly appreciative of its peer-reviewers. It is only by collaboration with our reviewers that editors can ensure that the manuscripts we publish are novel, highest quality and contribute significantly in their area of research. We thank our reviewers for their continued commitment to our publication process.