Guide for Reviewer

Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is a privilege. However, it is a time-consuming responsibility. Hence, TANRA's Editorial Board, authors, and audiences appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and dedication. TANRA adheres to a double-blind peer-review process that is rapid, fair, and ensures a high quality of articles published. In so doing, TANRA needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turnaround of about three weeks. Maintaining TANRA as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts.

 

REVIEWERS' RESPONSIBILITIES

If TANRA's Editor-in-Chief has invited you to review a manuscript, please consider the following:

1. Reviewing manuscript critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their work.
2. Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary.
3. Providing all required information within established deadlines.
4. Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal.
5. Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest to the authors or the content of a manuscript they asked to review.
6. Reporting possible research misconduct.
7. Suggest alternative reviewers if they cannot review the manuscript for any reason.
8. Treating the manuscript as a confidential document.
9. Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript.
10. Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow, they identify the authors.
11. Not identifying themselves as authors.
12. Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer.
13. Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work.
14. Informing the editor if they find the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to their knowledge.
15. Writing review report in English or Arabic.
16. Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript 

 

WHAT SHOULD BE CHECKED WHILE REVIEWING A MANUSCRIPT?

1. Novelty
2. Originality
3. Scientific reliability
4. A valuable contribution to the science
5. Adding new aspects to the existed field of study
6. Ethical aspects
7. Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors' guidelines
8. References provided to substantiate the content
9. Grammar, punctuation, and spelling
10. Scientific misconduct 

 

Accept or decline the review invitation

Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:

Q1) Does the article match your area of expertise?  Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality review.

Q2) Do you have a potential conflict of interest?  Disclose this to the editor when you respond.

Q3) Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work – before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.

 

How to peer review for TANRA

The reviewer report should comprehensively critique the submission and consist of much more than a few brief sentences. TANRA does not require a specific structure for reports, however, a suggested format is: Summary, Major issues, Minor issues. We encourage reviewers to help authors improve their manuscripts. The report should give constructive analysis to authors, particularly where revisions are recommended. Where reviewers do not wish authors to see specific comments, these can be added to the confidential comments to the editor in chief. While expectations vary by discipline, some core aspects that reviewers should critique may include: 

• Are the research questions valid?
• Is the sample size sufficient?
• Is there necessary ethical approval and/or consent and was the research ethical?
• Are the methods and study design appropriate for answering the research question?
• Do the experiments have appropriate controls?
• Is the reporting of the methods, including any equipment and materials, sufficiently detailed that the research might be reproduced?
• Are any statistical tests used appropriate and correctly reported?
• Are the figures and tables clear and do they accurately represent the results?
• Has previous research by the authors and others been discussed and have those results been compared to the current results?
• Are there any inappropriate citations, for example, not supporting the claim being made or too many citations to the author's own articles?
• Do the results support the conclusions?
• Are limitations of the research acknowledged?
• Is the abstract an accurate summary of the research and results, without spin?
• Is the language clear and understandable? 

 

Submitting reviewing reports

To help authors receive timely reviews, reviewer reports should be submitted via the manuscript tracking system on or before the agreed deadline. Reviewers should contact TANRA if they are unable to meet the deadline so an alternative date can be arranged. 

We encourage reviewers to focus their reports on objectively critiquing the scientific aspects of the submission, including the soundness of the methodology and whether the conclusions can be supported by the results. Comments may also be given on novelty and the potential impact of the work. At the end of their review, we ask reviewers to recommend one of the following actions: 

1. Accepted
2. Minor Revision
3. Major Revision
4. Reject
5. Unable to Review 

 

Confidentiality Manuscripts