• Guidelines for Managing Peer Review Assignments
• Confidentiality
• How to Log In and Access
• Review Guidelines
  • 1. For Research Articles
  • 2. For Review Articles
• Review Workflow
• Reading and Screening the Manuscript
  • 1. Methodology
  • 2. Data and Illustrations
  • 3. Ethical Considerations
• Overall Assessment
• Structure of the Review Report
• Recommendation Categories
• Final Decision

Guidelines for Managing Peer Review Assignments

Confidentiality

Upon accepting an invitation to review, reviewers are responsible for maintaining strict confidentiality over all materials received. This means no content may be shared with any third party without prior written permission from the Editorial Board. Because the review is conducted under an anonymous model, reviewers must not disclose any information related to the review to anyone without the consent of both the Editorial Board and the author(s).

How to Log In and Access Review Materials

The reviewer’s tasks are managed via the journal’s online submission system at:

https://i-jmst.vimaru.edu.vn/index.php/jmst/login

Review Guidelines by Manuscript Type and Journal Requirements

If the journal does not specify a list of review questions, reviewers may consult the following criteria before preparing their report for the Editorial Board and/or the author(s).

1. For Research Articles

Reviewers should focus on the following aspects:

• The novelty, originality, and overall significance of the manuscript.

• The scholarly interest and scientific value of the topic.

• The scientific and technical quality of the research.

• The accuracy and clarity of the English language used.

• A clear appraisal of the strengths and limitations of the research methods.

• Specific, actionable suggestions to improve the manuscript’s presentation.

• An objective evaluation of how the authors interpret results and draw conclusions.

2. For Review Articles

Reviewers should consider the following points:

• The importance and scope of the review’s subject.

• The article’s distinctiveness and contribution of new perspectives.

• How well recent scientific advances are synthesized, including the relevance and breadth of the references (both foundational literature and current studies).

• Comments on writing quality, structure, tables, and figures.

• Evaluation of the authors’ analysis and critical appraisal of the literature.

Review Workflow

Reading and Screening the Manuscript

As a first step, reviewers should read the manuscript carefully. They may prioritize key sections to identify major issues early. Below are notes for specific sections:

1. Methodology (Methodology)

If the manuscript reports an experiment, please examine the methodology first. Serious issues include:

• Unreliable or inappropriate research methods.

• Use of approaches that have been discredited by the scientific community.

• Omission of critical procedures that directly affect the field of study.

• Conclusions that contradict the statistical or qualitative evidence presented.

For quantitative analyses, pay particular attention to sampling—especially in longitudinal studies. For qualitative work, verify that data analysis procedures are described systematically, with sufficient detail and appropriate citations, rather than relying solely on narrative accounts.

2. Research Data and Illustrations

Once the methodology is deemed reliable, carefully examine the data presented in tables, figures, charts, or images. Authors may provide research data to enhance transparency and post-publication reusability. Reviewers should therefore attend to any data links (if available) in the submission package and evaluate them thoroughly.

Serious data-related issues include: insufficient sample size, statistically meaningless biases, and unclear tables or figures.

3. Ethical Considerations

Experiments involving patient data or animals must be documented and reported in accordance with regulations. Most journals require formal ethics approval from the authors’ institutional oversight body.

Overall Assessment and Drafting the Review

If no major flaws are identified, pause to reflect and evaluate the manuscript from your professional perspective. Before drafting the review, ensure you have fully understood the journal’s specific reviewer instructions (often provided in the “Guidelines for Reviewers”).

Structure of the Review Report

The reviewer’s report is crucial for assisting the Editorial Board in making a publication decision and for helping the authors improve their manuscript. Therefore:

• Provide a succinct overall assessment and clearly state the main observations.

• Maintain a courteous, constructive tone; avoid inflammatory language and refrain from disclosing personal information (including the reviewer’s identity).

• When identifying shortcomings, explain and justify them clearly so that both the Editorial Board and the authors understand the basis of your comments.

• Distinguish clearly between personal opinions and evidence-based assessments.

Recommendation Categories

When making a recommendation, reviewers may consider the following classifications:

• Reject – provide clear reasons in the review.

• Accept without revision.

• Revise – which may be major or minor. Specify the required revisions and indicate whether you are willing to re-review the manuscript after resubmission. For revision recommendations, provide specific, reasonable, and consistent justifications.

Final Decision

The Editorial Board holds the final authority to accept or reject a manuscript. The Board will consider all reviewer comments, may invite additional reviewers, or request revisions from the authors before issuing the official decision.