UNIMAS Journals operate a blind peer review system.
Before accepting a manuscript for review, reviewers should make sure that the submitted article is within their area of expertise and can dedicate the time and effort to perform a critical evaluation.
Conflict of Interest
If a conflict of interest arises, reviewers should disclose as such and remove themselves from the peer review process.
Manuscripts are private documents that are entrusted to a reviewer for the sole purpose of evaluation. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the review process. During and after the review process, details about the manuscript and the review process should be private.
Reviewers who exploit information gathered through the peer review process for their own or any other person's or organisation's advantage or to the disadvantage or discredit of others are acting unethically.
Reviews should be neutral and honest. Reviewers should not be influenced by the manuscript's origins, religious, political, or cultural views, and gender, race, and ethnicity.
Reviewers should focus on a manuscript's originality, contribution to the area, technical excellence, presentation clarity, and depth of research.
Reviewers should also: check that the author(s) followed the author guidelines, editorial policies, and publication ethics, if applicable, and ensure that the journal reporting guidelines are followed.
The review report must be precise, objective, constructive, and straightforward. In regards to the manuscript's content, comments should be supported by facts and constructive arguments. Reviewers should refrain from making hostile, insulting, and accusatory comments.
Reviewers should not rewrite the manuscript; instead, they should make any essential changes and suggestions for improvement.
Reviewers should only accept manuscripts for which they are confident they will have enough time to review. As a result, reviewers should review and return manuscripts promptly.
Reviewers' recommendations should be either:
- Requires minor corrections
- Requires major revision
- Not suitable for the journal.
The recommendation should be supported by constructive arguments and facts based on the manuscript's content.