Peer Review ensures that research is properly verified before being published and also helps to refine key points and correct inadvertent errors in the manuscript.JCTMB thanks the effort and expertise that reviewers contributed for reviewing, without which it would be impossible to maintain the high standards of peer-reviewed journals. Reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially, the article that reviewer has been asked to review and should not disclose to a third party. We welcome additional comments from the reviewer. Reviewer should note that when submitting the review that any recommendations you make will contribute to the final decision only made by the editors.
Reviewers are requested to evaluate the article according to the following guidelines:
Innovation of the submitted article
Reviewers should note that the submitted article is novel and interesting to warrant publication and also to note whether this article adds to the standard of knowledge.
Structure of the submitted article
Reviewers should observe whether the article is clearly laid out with all the key elements includes abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion and conclusion.
Reviewer to check whether title clearly describe the article.
Reviewer to check whether abstract reflects the content of the article.
Reviewer to check whether the author clearly state the problem being investigated. Introduction part should summarize relevant research to provide context, other author(s) findings if any are being challenged and also to describe the hypothesis and experimental methods.
Materials & Method
Reviewer to check whether the author explain clearly how the data was collected. Is the article identifying the procedures followed and explained in detail? Is the sampling done appropriately, did the equipment and materials been adequately described, is the article make it clear about type of data was recorded.
Reviewer need to consider whether appropriate analysis has been conducted and the statistics are correct. Do the figures and tables inform the reader and are they consistent.
Discussion & Conclusion
This section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Did the author indicate how the results relate to expectations and to other earlier research and also support or contradict to the previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the scientific knowledge forward?
Over all 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 may wish to bring it to the attention of the editorial.
Reviewer's report to the Editor
The review report should contain the key elements of the reviewer, addressing the points outlined in the different section. Clarification should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks. Reviewer should explain and support judgment on the manuscript so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind the reviewer comments.
A peer review system involving two or three reviewer is used to ensure high quality of manuscripts accepted for publication. The Managing editor and editors have the right to decline formal review of a manuscript when it is deemed that the manuscript is
Outside the scope of the JCTMB
Lacking practical merit
Manuscript focused only on narrow scope and significance
Fragmentary and providing marginally incremental results and poor presentation of manuscript