Reviewer Guidelines

Manuscripts submitted to MAPSS are initially reviewed by the MAPSS editor to check their potential suitability. Only those manuscripts that meet the MAPSS criteria will be sent out for formal peer review. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript, focusing on its originality and value, technical quality, clarity and organization, depth of research and contribution to the field. Based on reviewers’ advice, the editor decides to: accept the manuscript, require major revision, require minor revision, or reject the manuscript. Reviewers’ feedback and timely submission are greatly appreciated.

All reviews are submitted online through the MAPSS submission system. Reviewers should observe that the author(s) have followed the author guidelines, editorial policy and publication ethics and that the reporting guidelines are fully applied. The reviewer report should be objective, unbiased, clear, unambiguous, accurate, and constructive. The reviewer’s comments must be substantiated by facts and arguments and reviewers should avoid hostile or sarcastic comments. Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the manuscript and should not discuss the unpublished manuscript with colleagues. If reviewers want their manuscript to remain anonymous, they should avoid disclosing their identity through named comments.

Reviewers should fill in the MAPSS reviwer report. The following questions need to addressed to properly evaluate the paper:

  • Does the title reflect the contents of the manuscript?
  • Does the abstract contain precise and essential information about the manuscript?
  • Is the manuscript’s framework clearly established in the introductory section?
  • Are the study’s objectives and research questions clearly defined?
  • Are the usefulness and significance of the current study explicitly specified?
  • Does the author use a sufficient number of references to outline the study’s background?
  • Does the author use credible and updated research sources to strengthen his/her arguments?
  • Is the research methodology clear and precise?
  • Was the statistical analysis conducted appropriately? (if applicable)
  • Are the tables and figures effectively presented? Are they sufficiently informative?
  • Are the findings appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature in the field?
  • Are main conclusions supported by the obtained results?
  • Do authors support their arguments with clear evidence?
  • Are sources in the reference list cited correctly and according to the journal guidelines?
  • Does the language need improvement? Does the manuscript contain any typographical and grammatical errors?
  • Is the manuscript understandable and appropriate for the MAPSS journal?