Peer Review Guidelines

  Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, please consider the following:
  1. The article suits your area of expertise and you can conduct an insightful and precise review of it.
  2. There is no conflict of interest between you and the author(s). If so, report it to the editor immediately.
  3. Before you accept the invitation, make certain that you can complete the review within the assigned deadline. If there are unexpected circumstances that hinder your progress towards the deadline, report them to the editors immediately, so they can inform the author(s) of the possible delay.
  4. Whether you decide to accept or decline the invitation, please respond to it at your earliest convenience.
  5. It is also important to note that the information about the review must not be shared with anyone without permission from the editors and the author(s).
  Step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript
  1. Reviewer’s duty is to consider a manuscript before publication, providing suggestions for the author’s corrections and giving advice that helps improve its content quality.
  2. Author should use a standard writing format and appropriate academic tone and style that suit the content of the manuscript without plagiarism. It is important to note that ENNRJ strictly follows a set of guidelines and recommendations published by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
  3. The manuscript must derive from the research project initiated by the author and contain a link between the discussion of research findings, objectives and the literature review that are beneficial for academic circles.
  4. Reviewer should provide suggestions and corrections for the improvement of the manuscript quality concerning the key components including tile, abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, findings, discussion of the findings, language use and citation.
  5. Reviewer should provide the author with suggestions and comments on an appropriate use of data tables, figures, charts and diagrams. 
  6. Reviewer should provide the author with a list of other suggestions necessary for a further improvement of the manuscript, which also facilitate the subsequent checking and correction process.