Reviewer Guidlines

The peer-review process is very important in publishing a high-quality article in which reviewer’s role is very essential. Reviewer comments are the primary source of an Editor in making a decision on an article. JWMC request our reviewers to read the guidelines given below and follow them.

General Guidelines/Note

  • The JWMC operates a double-blind peer-review process as per HEC guidelines.
  • Immediately after Editor’s initial assessment, reviewers are invited to review the manuscript and to provide detailed comments on the manuscript.
  • Based on the manuscript title and abstract, reviewers can accept or decline the invitation or they can suggest an alternate reviewer, however, it is not mandatory.
  • Articles submitted to JWMC are peer-reviewed by at least two nationally or internationally recognized experts. If the reviewer(s) comments are not satisfied, the Editor-in-Chief may invite more reviewers or may seek advice from Editorial Board to make a final decision on the manuscript.
  • Reviewers must not share or discuss the manuscript with anyone outside the peer-review process. They must keep the peer-review process confidential.
  • Reviewers are kindly requested to submit their valuable comments on the manuscript within the agreed timeframe. However, if reviewers required more time, they can send emails to the corresponding Editors to extend the time for submitting the comments.
  • Potential Conflicts of Interests: Reviewers may inform the Editor-in-Chief if they hold any conflict of interest. If the reviewers are invited to evaluate an article that they previously reviewed for another journal should not consider this as a conflict of interest in itself. In this case, reviewers can comment on the manuscript and can highlight the changes made between the previous version and the current one.

Comments to Authors:

  • It is highly recommended that the reviewer should comment on the originality of the manuscript submitted for review.
  • Reviewer comments should include the strengths and weaknesses of the work and the manuscript in a more detailed manner.
  • Reviewers should give valuable advice on how to improve the article. However, it should not change or spoil the focus of the manuscript.
  • Technical quality, clarity of the presentation, depth of research, and contribution to the field of the manuscript should be commented on in as detail as possible.
  • Review comments should be comprehensive and clear.
  • Reviewer must avoid personal criticism on authors, co-authors, or corresponding authors.
  • Reviewers must not contact authors personally about the paper or work.
  • Reviewers’ recommendations should be either:
  • Accept as it: The paper is accepted without any further changes.
  • Minor revision: The manuscript can be accepted after minor changes.
  • Major revision: The acceptance of the manuscript is depending on the revisions and the manuscript requires major changes before its acceptance for publication.
  • Resubmission: Manuscript may be resubmitted after the editor or reviewer's suggestion.
  • Article transfer to another Journal: Manuscript may be suitable for another journal.
  • Reject: The article is not original, or it has serious flaws.

Comments to Editors:

  • Reviewers can make personal comments on the manuscript about the originality, quality and clarity of the paper.
  • Specific statements such as ‘this work have been done before’ can be highlighted with appropriate references or evidence which may help editors in their evaluation and decision.
  • Make sure that the confidential comments on the manuscript to the editor should not be a place for denigration or false accusation, done in the knowledge that the authors will not see these comments.

For more details, we recommend our Reviewers follow the guidelines for Peer Reviewers as per HEC criteria (Ethical guidelines for journals, Journals and publication policies).