Guide for reviewers

I. Introduction: The Essential Role of Peer Review at JST

This section introduces the importance of peer review for the Journal of Science and Technology (JST) and highlights the crucial role reviewers play in maintaining academic quality and integrity.

Peer review is the cornerstone ensuring the quality, originality, and relevance of scholarly work published in the Journal of Science and Technology (JST). As a Reviewer, you not only assist the Editorial Board in making informed decisions but also contribute to the advancement of science and technology by providing insightful, objective, and constructive expert evaluations. We deeply appreciate your contribution of time and expertise to this critical academic process. These guidelines aim to provide a clear framework for your role and responsibilities.

II. Becoming a Reviewer for JST

This section describes the steps and requirements for experts to join JST's reviewer network, ensuring JST can match appropriate expertise with submitted manuscripts.

JST always welcome enthusiastic experts to join the JST reviewer network.

1. Express Interest / Register:

  • The best way is to create an account (or update your existing one) on JST's online submission system in here.
  • Important: Ensure your profile is complete, and accurate especially your contact information, academic affiliation, and Areas of Expertise.
  • Select Expertise Keywords: Provide detailed and specific keywords that best describe your research field and in-depth expertise. This is crucial for the Editorial Board to invite you for the most relevant manuscripts.

2. Joining the Network: 

After registering and completing your profile, you will be added to JST's potential reviewer database.

III. Handling Review Invitations: Initial Responsibilities

Upon receiving a review invitation, careful evaluation and a prompt response are crucial for an efficient editorial process. This section guides you on how to handle invitations effectively.

When you receive a review invitation via email from JST:

1. Respond Promptly: Please accept or decline the invitation as soon as possible (ideally within 3-5 days) using the links provided in the email. A timely response, even if declining, helps the Editorial Board maintain an efficient workflow.

2. Assess Suitability: Before accepting, ask yourself:

  • Expertise: Does the manuscript's topic, methodology, and scope genuinely fall within your area of deep expertise? Do you have sufficient background knowledge to provide a rigorous and fair assessment? (You don't need to be an expert in every aspect but should master the core elements).
  • Time: Do you have sufficient time to dedicate to thorough reading and writing a quality review report before the deadline stated in the invitation? (If you need slightly more time, you may contact the Editorial Office to inquire).
  • Conflict of Interest (CoI): Do you have any relationship that could potentially bias your review? (See Section VI for details). If a CoI exists, you must decline the invitation.
  • Decline and Suggest (If Possible): If you decline (for any reason), the Editorial Board would greatly appreciate it if you could suggest the names and contact details of one or two alternative colleagues with suitable expertise (with their permission, if feasible).​

IV. Conducting the Review: Comprehensive Manuscript Evaluation

This is the core of the reviewer's task, focusing on the thorough evaluation of the manuscript against scientific and academic criteria. This section provides a detailed framework for your assessment.

Your goal is to provide a critical yet constructive assessment of the manuscript. Focus on the following core criteria:

1. Relevance and Scope: Does the paper fall within the stated aims and scope of JST? Will it be of interest to the JST readership?

2. Originality and Significance:

  • Does the paper present original research that has not been published previously?
  • Does it address an important or interesting scientific/technical problem?
  • What is the extent of the novel contribution? (e.g., proposes a completely new theory/method, significantly improves existing methods, provides important new data, offers a novel and insightful review).
  • Are the findings significant enough to warrant publication?

3. Technical Quality and Methodology:

  • Are the research objectives/questions clearly stated?
  • Is the study design/methodology appropriate for the objectives? Is it described in sufficient detail for others to understand and potentially replicate?
  • Are there methodological limitations that are not addressed or adequately considered?
  • Was data collection performed validly and reliably?
  • Is the data analysis technically sound and statistically/theoretically correct?

4. Results and Discussion:

  • Are the results presented clearly, logically, and concisely (through text, tables, figures)?
  • Are tables and figures of good quality, easy to understand, adequately labeled, and truly necessary?
  • Does the discussion interpret the results reasonably? Does it compare them with relevant existing work?
  • Are the conclusions strongly supported by the data and analysis presented? Do the authors make claims that extend beyond the evidence?
  • Are the limitations of the study acknowledged?

5. Clarity, Organization, and Presentation:

  • Is the manuscript logically structured and easy to follow? Do the sections connect well?
  • Is the English language clear, precise, professional, and free from major grammatical/spelling errors? (You are not expected to copyedit but should point out if poor language quality hinders understanding).
  • Does the title accurately reflect the content? Does the Abstract provide an accurate and comprehensive overview of the study?

6. References:

  • Is the citation of relevant literature adequate, current, and appropriate?
  • Are any crucial related works omitted?
  • Is there excessive citation of unnecessary or self-promotional literature?
  • Does the reference formatting adhere to JST guidelines? (Point out major issues).

V. Structuring the Review Report: Providing Effective Feedback

How you structure your review report is as important as the assessment itself. This section guides you on organizing your feedback to be most helpful for both the Editors and the authors.

Please structure your feedback within the online review system.

1. Confidential Comments to the Editor:

  • This section is visible only to the Editor.
  • Provide your overall frank assessment of the manuscript's quality, originality, significance, and suitability.
  • Clearly state the main strengths and weaknesses.
  • Clearly justify your final recommendation (Accept, Revision, Reject).
  • Report any ethical concerns (see Section VI).
  • You may comment on the level of revision needed if recommending revision.

2. Comments for the Author:

  • This section will be forwarded to the author(s) (anonymously). Write professionally, politely, and constructively. The goal is to help the authors improve their paper.
  • Opening: You might start with a brief summary of your understanding of the paper's goals and main contributions and your overall impression (e.g., "This paper presents an interesting approach to [problem]... However, several points require clarification/improvement...").
  • Major Issues/Points for Major Revision: List, using numbered points, the significant issues that need addressing. Clearly explain what each issue is, why it is a problem, and offer specific suggestions for improvement where possible. Focus on scientific aspects, methodology, analysis, interpretation, and structure.
  • Minor Issues/Points for Minor Revision: List, using numbered points, smaller points for improvement, e.g., clarifying a sentence/paragraph, minor errors in tables/figures, recurring typos/grammar issues, suggesting specific additional references, inconsistent formatting.
  • Tone: Use objective language; avoid condescending or personally critical remarks. Instead of "This method is wrong," try "The methodology described in Section X is unclear/does not seem appropriate because [reason]. The authors should consider [suggested solution] or further justify [point needing clarification]."

3. Recommendation:

  • Based on your overall assessment, select a clear recommendation:
    • Accept: Outstanding paper requires no or only very minor editorial/formatting changes.
    • Minor Revision: The paper is fundamentally sound and scientifically valuable but requires some minor improvements in clarity, presentation, or explanation that the authors can easily address. Re-review is usually not required.
    • Major Revision: The paper has potential but requires substantial changes (e.g., re-analysis of data, significant additional experiments/information, major rewriting of key sections). Requires re-review after revision.
    • Reject: The paper has serious flaws that cannot be remedied (in methodology, originality, unsupported conclusions), is outside the scope of JST, or is of very poor quality. Provide clear reasons for rejection in your comments.
  • To ensure timely and effective review, please avoid repeated rounds of Major Revision. If a paper receives a Major Revision in the first round, the second round should result in either Minor Revision or Reject, based on the authors’ response. Extended review cycles should be avoided.

VI. Core Ethical Principles and Responsibilities

Maintaining the highest ethical standards is fundamental to the integrity of the peer review process and scholarly publishing. This section outlines the critical ethical responsibilities reviewers must adhere to.

As a reviewer, you must adhere to the following ethical standards:

  • Strict Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript as a privileged and confidential document. Do not disclose any information about the manuscript or your review to anyone other than the JST Editorial Office. Do not use knowledge gained from the manuscript for your own or others' advantage before publication. Do not contact the authors directly.
  • Conflict of Interest (CoI): You must decline to review if you have any potential CoI, including (but not limited to):
    • Working at the same institution and having a close relationship (e.g., same research group, advisor/advise).
    • Having collaborated or co-authored publications with any of the authors within the last 3-5 years.
    • Being in direct competition regarding the research topic or funding.
    • Having a personal relationship (family, close friend) or animosity towards an author.
    • Having a financial interest related to the outcome of the paper.
    • If unsure, contact the Editorial Office to discuss it confidentially.
  • Objectivity and Impartiality: Evaluate the manuscript based on its scientific merit and academic quality, irrespective of the authors' nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, political beliefs, or your personal views on the topic.
  • Professionalism and Constructiveness: Provide feedback politely, professionally, and constructively, even if recommending rejection. Avoid sarcastic, derogatory, or personally offensive comments.
  • Timeliness: Complete and submit your review report by the agreed-upon deadline. If you anticipate a delay, please inform the Editorial Office as soon as possible.
  • Detecting and Reporting Research Misconduct: If you have serious suspicions of plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification, redundant publication, or other ethical issues, report them confidentially and immediately to the Editorial Office. Provide as much detail or evidence as possible. Do not include such accusations in your comments to the author and do not investigate further yourself.

VII. Post‑Review

Your task isn't necessarily complete once the report is submitted. This section describes what typically happens next and your potential involvement in subsequent stages.

  • Anonymity: JST employs a single-anonymous or double-anonymous review process here. Your identity will not be revealed to the authors.
  • Reviewing Revisions: You may be invited to re-review the manuscript if the authors were asked to make revisions (especially Major Revisions). This is crucial to ensure the issues have been adequately addressed.
  • Notification of Final Decision: The Editorial Office will usually inform you of the final decision made in the manuscript you reviewed, as an acknowledgment of your contribution.
  • Certificate of Review: If needed, a certificate confirming your review contribution can be provided upon request.

VIII. Support and Resources

We understand you may have questions or require assistance during the review process. This section provides contact information should you need support.

We are always ready to assist you. If you have any questions about the review process or a specific manuscript, please contact:

  • JST Editorial Office:

📍 Room 320 – Ta Quang Buu Library, Hanoi University of Science and Technology
1 Dai Co Viet Street, Hai Ba Trung District, Hanoi, Vietnam
📞 Tel: +84 (024) 3623.0949
📧 Email: jst@hust.edu.vn