Primary Menu
Guide for Review
Responsibility of Peer Reviewer
Medical Science Journal for Advance Research (MSJAR)
The peer reviewer is responsible for critiquing by reading and evaluating manuscripts in the field of expertise, then giving constructive advice and honest feedback to the author of the article submitted. Peer reviewers discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, how to increase the strength and quality of the paper, and evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript.
Before Reviewing
1
Expertise: Is the article requested to be reviewed following your expertise? If you receive a manuscript covering topics that are not appropriate areas of your knowledge, please notify the editor as soon as possible and recommend an alternative reviewer.
2
Time: Do you have the time to review this paper? The review process must be completed within two weeks. If you agree and require a more extended period, notify the editor as soon as possible, or suggest an alternative reviewer.
3
Conflict of Interest: Conflicts of interest will not automatically disqualify you as a reviewer. However, disclose all conflicts of interest to the editor before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interest, please contact the editorial office.
Review Process
When reviewing the article, please consider the following:
1. Title: Is it clearly illustrating the article?
2. Abstract: Does it reflect the contents of the article?
3. Introduction: Does it describe the accuracy of matters submitted by the author and clearly state the problem being considered? Typically, the introduction should summarize the context of the relevant research, explain the findings or other results offered for discussion, and explain the experiments, hypotheses, and methods.
Content of the Article
In order to determine the originality and suitability for the journal, are there any elements of plagiarism over 25% of this paper field? A quick literature search can use certain tools such as Scopus to see if there are similarities from other parts.
1. If other authors had previously done the study, is it still eligible for publication?
2. Is the article relatively new, reasonably deep, and exciting to be published?
3. Does it contribute to knowledge?
4. Does the article adhere to the standards of the journal?
5. Scope: Is the article in line with the objectives and scope of the journal?
Method
Comprehensive and perfect:
1. Does the author accurately describe how the data is collected?
2. Is the theoretical basis or reference used appropriately for this study?
3. Is the exposure design suitable for the answer to the question?
4. Is there decent enough information for you to imitate the research?
5. Does the article identify the following procedures?
6. Are there any new methods? If there is a new method, does the author explain it in detail?
7. Is there any appropriate sampling?
8. Have the tools and materials used been adequately explained?
9. Does the article describe what type of data is recorded and correctly describe the measurement?
Results
It is where the author must explain the findings in his/her research. It should be laid out in a logical sequence. You will need to consider whether the appropriate analysis has been carried out, including the use of statistical tools. If you have a better analytical tool to be used in this study, notify it. The interpretation need not be included in this section.
Discussion and Conclusion
1. Are the claims in this section supported by the fair results and quite reasonable?
2. Does the author compare the research results with other previous ones?
3. Do the results of the research written in the article contradict previous theories?
4. Does the conclusion explain how better scientific research can be followed up?
Tables and Pictures
Is it suitable for the referred explanation by showing data that is easy to interpret and understandable for the readers?
Writing Styles
1. Authors must be critical mostly to the systematic literature review of the issues, which is relevant to the field of study.
2. Reviews should be focused on a single topic.
3. All exposure should be in English and written in good and coherent grammar.
4. Easy to understand.
5. Interesting to read.
Things That Need to Be Considered
Perspective: A unique perspective that describes experiences and situations related to issues.
Originality Research
1. The original data and testing must present data that offers a new approach to improve systems, processes, and precision of the tools which are used.
2. Research policy and observational analysis should clarify the feasibility, effectiveness, and implementation of the research results.
3. In Practice (case study), the paper should explain the situation regarding future challenges and, within its conclusions, identify things which can be learned.
Reference
1. First Person (Interview)
2. Book Reviews
3. Insight Technology (Product Review)
Final Review
1. All results of the review submitted by reviewers are confidential.
2. If you want to discuss the article with a colleague, kindly inform the editor.
3. Do not contact the author directly.
Ethical Issues
Plagiarism: If you suspect the article is mostly plagiarism from other authors, please let the editor know the details.
Fraud: It is complicated to detect a fraud category, but if you suspect the results in the article are not valid, please inform the editor.
Review Deadline: Complete "The Review" by the due date to the editorial office. Your recommendation for the article will be considered when the editor makes a final decision, and your honest feedback is highly appreciated.
Reviewer Comments
When you write a comment, please show the part of the criticism that is only intended for the editor and components that can be returned to the author.
Need Help?
Please do not hesitate to contact the editorial office with any questions or problems that you may encounter.
Contact Editorial Office 
