Reviewer Guidelines

Arashi Journal of Metals & Material Sciences strives hard toward the spread of scientific knowledge, and the credibility of the published research paper completely depends upon an effective peer review process. Reviewing a manuscript is an important part of the publication process. Reviewers are asked to make an evaluation and provide recommendations to ensure the scientific quality of the manuscript is on par with our standards. The reviewers of Arashi Journal of Metals & Material are requested to provide authentic review comments for the respective manuscript. A reviewer has to review the articles received from the editorial office or the editor within the specifically mentioned timeline.

General Principles

  • Confidentiality: Treat all manuscripts as confidential documents. Do not discuss their content with anyone other than the editorial team. The peer review process is confidential, and the information should not be used for personal advantage.
  • Objectivity: Provide objective and constructive feedback. Avoid personal criticism of the authors. Ensure that the review process is unbiased and that the authors receive full credit for their work.
  • Conflict of Interest: Disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could bias your review. Recuse yourself if necessary. Do not review manuscripts where you have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Review Process

  • Timeliness: Complete your review within the agreed timeframe. Notify the editor if you need more time. Submit a comprehensive and substantial peer review report in a timely manner.
  • Thoroughness: Read the manuscript thoroughly, including the abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Pay attention to the references and supplementary materials. Bring to the editorial committee's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the article under consideration and any other published work of which you have personal knowledge.

Evaluation Criteria

  • Originality and Novelty: Assess whether the manuscript presents novel and significant findings. Determine if it advances the field.
  • Clarity and Coherence: Evaluate the clarity of the writing and the logical flow of ideas. Check if the manuscript is well-organized.
  • Methodology: Critically analyze the appropriateness and rigor of the research methods. Ensure that the experiments or analyses are well-designed and executed.
  • Data and Results: Examine the accuracy and validity of the data. Check if the results are presented clearly and supported by the data.
  • Interpretation and Conclusions: Assess whether the conclusions are supported by the results. Ensure that the discussion adequately addresses the implications of the findings.
  • References: Verify that the references are relevant and up-to-date. Ensure that proper credit is given to previous work.
  • Scope of the Journal: Evaluate whether the manuscript fits within the stated scope of the journal.

Ethical Considerations

  • Plagiarism: Be alert for any signs of plagiarism or self-plagiarism. Report any concerns to the editor.
  • Data Fabrication/Falsification: Look out for any indications of data manipulation or fabrication. Notify the editor if you suspect any unethical practices.
  • Human and Animal Rights: Ensure that any studies involving human or animal subjects comply with ethical standards and have appropriate approvals.

Review Report

  • Summary: Provide a brief summary of the manuscript, highlighting its main points and contributions.
  • Strengths and Weaknesses: Clearly outline the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
  • Recommendations: Offer specific recommendations for improvement. Indicate whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected.
  • Detailed Comments: Include detailed comments addressing specific sections of the manuscript. Provide evidence and examples to support your feedback.

Communication

  • Respectful Tone: Use a respectful and professional tone in your comments. Aim to provide constructive criticism that will help the authors improve their work.
  • Clarifications: Be open to follow-up questions from the editor or authors. Provide additional clarification if requested.

Final Decision

  • Decision Justification: Clearly justify your final decision (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject). Ensure your recommendations align with your evaluation.
  • Review Consistency: Ensure that your comments and recommendations are consistent and do not contradict each other.
  • Non-Discrimination: Your comments and reviews must never be influenced by race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, language, origin, gender, or any political agencies.

Thank you for your valuable contribution to the Arashi Journal of Metals & Material Sciences peer review process. Your expertise and dedication are essential in upholding the quality of published research.