Guidelines for Reviewers

1. The Reviewer's Responsibility

Your primary responsibility as a reviewer is to provide the Editor-in-Chief with a critical, constructive, and objective assessment of the submitted manuscript. Your report must evaluate the scientific quality, originality, validity, and clarity of the research to assist the editor in making a fair publication decision and to help the author(s) improve their work.

2. Confidentiality and Ethics

  • Confidentiality: The manuscript is a privileged and confidential document. You must not share, discuss, or disclose any information about the manuscript (including the content, its findings, or the review outcome) with anyone outside the journal’s editorial office.

  • Double-Blind Process: MJAP employs a double-blind review process. Do not attempt to determine the identity of the author(s), and ensure your comments do not reveal your own identity.

  • Conflict of Interest (COI): If you have any potential conflict of interest (e.g., you are a recent collaborator, a direct competitor, or have a personal relationship with the authors), you must decline the invitation to review and immediately notify the editor.

3. Key Evaluation Criteria

Your report should systematically address the following criteria:

  • Originality and Significance: Does the research present novel findings or a significant new contribution to the scientific field? Is the research question interesting and well-defined?

  • Scientific Validity and Methodology: Is the methodology appropriate, sound, and described with sufficient detail to allow for reproducibility? Is the data collection and analysis (including statistical methods, if applicable) robust and correctly applied?

  • Results and Interpretation: Are the results presented clearly and completely? Are the conclusions logically drawn and fully supported by the data presented? Do the authors avoid speculation or overstating their claims?

  • Clarity and Structure: Is the manuscript well-organized and easy to follow? Is the language (Arabic or English) clear, concise, and of high scientific quality? Does the manuscript adhere to the journal's structure (Title, Abstract, Introduction, etc.)?

  • References: Are the citations appropriate, relevant, and comprehensive? Are they cited correctly and consistently, following the journal's required APA 7th edition style?

  • Ethical Compliance: Check for adherence to ethical guidelines, especially concerning research involving human participants, animals, or sensitive data.

4. Providing Constructive Feedback

Your review must be constructive and professional. Separate your comments into two sections:

  1. Confidential Comments to the Editor: State your overall recommendation (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject) and provide your primary reasons. Include any non-public or ethical concerns (e.g., suspicion of plagiarism).

  2. Comments for the Author: These are the specific, actionable feedback points the author will see.

    • Major Comments: Focus on fundamental issues like flaws in the experimental design, interpretation of results, or significant structural deficiencies. These comments require substantial revision.

    • Minor Comments: Address issues related to clarity, grammar, formatting, figures/tables presentation, or minor omissions in the literature review.

Note: The tone should remain professional and objective at all times, avoiding any personal or judgmental language.

5. Handling Ethical Malpractice

If you detect any evidence of research misconduct (such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or undisclosed conflict of interest), you must immediately inform the Editor confidentially and provide any supporting evidence. Do not address the alleged misconduct directly to the author in your public comments.