Manuscripts submitted to CESTJ are reviewed by at least three experts. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript’s quality and scientific contribution and indicate whether it should be accepted, revised, or rejected.
1. Invitation to Review
Reviewers will receive an invitation email with the manuscript title and abstract .
Upon acceptance, a follow-up email provides access to the full manuscript .
Reviewers are requested to evaluate:
Scientific soundness and methodological rigor
Novelty and significance of the research
Overall merit and contribution to the field
Presentation quality and readability
Relevance and sobriety of references
2. Confidentiality and Anonymity
Manuscript content (including the title and abstract) must remain strictly confidential.
CESTJ, operates a single-blind peer review process:
Do not reveal your identity in comments or review files.
Reviewers remain anonymous to the authors.
3.Timelines
Reviews should be completed within the assigned timeframe.
If more time is needed, reviewers should contact the editor to request an extension.
4. Preparing the Review Report
Review reports must be constructive, specific, and professional, containing:
A. General Overview
A brief summary of the manuscript’s purpose, contributions, and strengths.
B. Major Comments
Comments on:
Methodological issues
Hypothesis validation
Weaknesses in the manuscript
Clarity and completeness of review topics (if applicable)
Missing controls or data
C. Specific Comments
Point-by-point feedback indicating line numbers, figures, or tables.
Highlight:
Issues with data or interpretation
Scientific inconsistencies
Unclear statements
5. Review Checklist
Consider the following questions during evaluation:
Scientific Rigor: Are experiments well-designed? Are results reproducible?
Clarity & Relevance: Is the manuscript clear, relevant, and well-structured?
Figures & Tables: Are they necessary, readable, and well-labeled?
Ethics: Are ethical and data availability statements provided and adequate?
Conclusion: Are conclusions logically supported by the data?
References: Are they current (mainly within 5 years)? Is there excessive self-citation?
6. Manuscript Rating Criteria
Rate each of the following areas:
Criteria
Evaluation Points
Title
Specific and relevant?
Abstract
Concise and informative?
Methodology
Appropriate and detailed?
Data
Sufficient and supports conclusions?
Writing Quality
Clear, professional, and grammatically sound?
Figures and Tables
Relevant, high quality, well-annotated?
Terminology Use
Correct use of terms, symbols, and abbreviations?
Originality/Novelty
Significant contribution to the field?
Significance
Are results meaningful and impactful?
Presentation Quality
Is the paper well-organized and formatted?
Scientific Soundness
Is the research valid and reproducible?
Interest to Readers
Will it appeal to IJMRAI readers?
Overall Merit
Does it meaningfully advance knowledge?
7. Ethical Standards
Manuscripts must present original work, not submitted or published elsewhere.
Proper citation of others’ work is required.
For biological or human/animal studies, ethical standards must be followed and disclosed.
8. Reviewer Comments Structure
Please provide:
Rank: Rate the manuscript compared to others in the field.
General Comments: Assess novelty and significance.
Comments to Authors: Visible to the author—must be constructive and detailed.
Comments to Editors: Confidential—visible only to the editorial team.