Reviewer Guidelines
The Tropical Journal of Chemistry (TJC) values the essential role of peer reviewers in upholding the quality, accuracy, and credibility of the research it publishes. Reviewers are critical to ensuring the academic excellence and integrity of the journal, and their contributions are deeply appreciated. To facilitate a smooth and effective review process, the following comprehensive guidelines have been established.
Assignment of Manuscripts
The TJC Editorial Team assigns manuscripts to reviewers based on their subject matter expertise. Reviewers are selected to ensure alignment with the content and methodology of the manuscript, promoting thorough and informed evaluations.
Ethical Standards for Reviewers
Confidentiality
Reviewers must treat all materials related to the manuscript as strictly confidential. These materials:
• Must not be shared, discussed, or disclosed to others without explicit authorization from the journal.
• Cannot be used for personal research purposes or cited before publication.
Prohibition Against Exploitation
• Unpublished content, data, or findings from the manuscript under review must not be used by reviewers for any purpose.
Objectivity and Impartiality
• Reviews must be conducted impartially and with a constructive attitude.
• Personal bias, whether stemming from relationships, ideologies, or competing research interests, should be consciously avoided.
Conflict of Interest
• Reviewers must disclose any actual or perceived conflicts of interest, such as financial ties, institutional affiliations, or personal relationships with the authors.
• If a conflict exists, reviewers should notify the editor promptly and withdraw from the review process.
Review Process Guidelines
Timely Completion
• Reviews should be completed within one week of manuscript assignment.
• If additional time is needed, reviewers must inform the editorial team immediately.
Communication Restrictions
• Direct communication between reviewers and authors is strictly prohibited.
• Any questions, clarifications, or concerns must be addressed through the Editor-in-Chief or the Managing Editor to maintain confidentiality and professionalism.
Constructive Feedback
• Feedback should be clear, detailed, and constructive, aimed at improving the manuscript while maintaining respect for the author’s effort.
• Avoid harsh, dismissive, or overly critical language. Suggestions should focus on actionable improvements.
Recommendations
• Comments for authors should not include explicit acceptance or rejection statements.
• Recommendations on acceptance or rejection should be made privately to the editor via the review form.
Key Criteria for Review
1. Scientific Reliability:
◦ Are the findings accurate, reproducible, and supported by sufficient data?
2. Clarity of Objectives:
◦ Are the research objectives clearly defined and effectively met?
3. Title Relevance:
◦ Does the title appropriately reflect the content of the manuscript?
4. Research Justification:
◦ Is the study's rationale clearly articulated and well-supported?
5. Manuscript Organization:
◦ Is the manuscript logically structured with clear sections (e.g., abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion)?
6. Methodology:
◦ Are the methods standard, well-documented, and appropriate for the research?
7. Research Questions:
◦ Are the research questions effectively addressed and answered?
8. References:
◦ Are citations relevant, up-to-date, and comprehensive?
9. Ethical Standards:
◦ Does the research comply with international ethical guidelines, particularly for studies involving human or animal subjects?
10. Writing Quality:
• Is the manuscript written in clear, precise English, free from grammatical errors?
11. Figures and Tables:
• Are visual elements relevant, clearly labelled, and effectively integrated into the text?
Reviewer Responsibilities
1. Confidentiality:
◦ Safeguard the manuscript and its content throughout the review process.
2. Professionalism:
◦ Provide fair, objective, and constructive evaluations.
3. Contribution to Editorial Decisions:
◦ Assist editors by identifying the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses and suggesting constructive revisions.
4. Timely Response:
◦ Notify the editor immediately if unable to review or if additional time is required.
5. Respectful Communication:
◦ Avoid any language that could be perceived as harsh, inappropriate, or unprofessional.
Special Considerations
Language and Composition
• Manuscripts should be written in clear, concise English.
• Authors are encouraged to seek professional language editing services for manuscripts with significant grammatical or typographical errors.
Research Involving Humans and Animals
• All research involving human or animal subjects must comply with international ethical standards.
• Reviewers should verify that ethical approvals are appropriately documented in the manuscript.
If You Accept the Invitation to Review
• Download: All manuscript materials and related files.
• Maintain Confidentiality: Protect all information throughout the review process.
• Provide Feedback: Deliver a thorough assessment of the manuscript’s strengths and areas for improvement, referencing the key review criteria.
If You Decline the Invitation to Review
• Notify the Editor: Clearly state your reason for declining.
• Suggest Alternatives: If possible, recommend qualified reviewers within your field of expertise.
Diversity and Inclusivity
• TJC is committed to diversity and inclusion in research and peer review. Reviewers are encouraged to evaluate manuscripts with sensitivity to diverse perspectives and equitable research practices.
Enforcement and Recognition
Addressing Non-Compliance
• Breaches of confidentiality, ethical standards, or professionalism will be investigated by the editorial board, with potential consequences including removal from the reviewer pool.
Recognition for Reviewers
• Outstanding reviewers may receive formal acknowledgment through certificates, awards, or recognition in journal publications.
