1.Invitation to Review
All manuscripts submitted to IJTRET are reviewed by at least two experts. These may be volunteer reviewers, editorial board members, or experts suggested by the Academic Editor. Reviewers are asked to check the quality of the manuscript and recommend whether it should be: .
- Accepted
- Revised
- Rejected
- Accept or decline as soon as possible after reading the title and abstract.
- Suggest another reviewer if you cannot accept.
- Ask for more time if you need an extension to complete the review properly.
When you receive an invitation to review, please:
Declaring Conflicts of Interest:
A conflict of interest is anything that may affect your ability to review the paper fairly and objectively. Examples include:
- Recent or ongoing collaboration with the authors
- Direct competition or past conflicts with the authors
- Financial benefit from the research
Do not accept the review if you have a conflict of interest or cannot be unbiased. If the journal still asks you to review, you must clearly declare the conflict when submitting your review.
Crediting Collaborators: If you review the paper with help from someone else (co-reviewing), you must inform the journal of their name. You can mention the collaborator’s name:
- In the “Confidential comments to Editor” section, or
- By email
Do not include the collaborator’s name inside the review comments. Confidentiality and conflict of interest rules apply to all reviewers involved.
Confidentiality: Manuscripts and related communication must be kept confidential. Do not share the manuscript or discuss its contents with anyone unless the editor allows it. Do not use any information from the manuscript for personal benefit.
Time to Review: Please complete your review within 10 days. If you need more time, inform the journal as soon as possible.
2.Review Reports All review reports must be written in English. Before Writing Your Review:
- Read the entire manuscript carefully, including supplementary materials.
- Pay close attention to figures, tables, data, and methods.
- Evaluate both the overall paper and specific sections.
- Provide detailed comments so authors can clearly understand and respond.
- Do not suggest unnecessary citations of your own work or others just to increase citations. Only suggest references if they truly improve the paper.
- Maintain a polite and professional tone. Avoid harsh or insulting language.
- Do not use AI tools or large language models (LLMs) to prepare your review.
i.Short Summary Write a short paragraph explaining:
- The aim of the paper
- Main contributions
- Strengths ii.General Comments For research articles, comment on:
- Weaknesses
- Clarity of hypothesis
- Problems in methods
- Missing controls For review articles, comment on:
- Coverage of the topic
- Relevance
- Gaps in knowledge
- Appropriateness of references These comments should focus on scientific content and be clear enough for authors to respond.
- Errors
- Unclear sentences
- Incorrect data
iii.Specific Comments Mention exact line numbers, tables, or figures when pointing out:
3.Questions to Guide Your Review
- Is the paper clear and well organized?
- Is it relevant to the field?
- Are most references recent (last 5 years)?
- Are there too many self-citations?
- Is the study scientifically sound?
- Are the methods detailed enough to repeat the study?
- Are figures and tables clear and accurate?
- Are conclusions supported by the results?
4.Rating the Manuscript
Please rate the manuscript based on:
Novelty-Is the research question original? Does it add new knowledge?
Scope-Does it fit the journal’s focus?
Significance – Are the results meaningful and properly explained?
Scientific Soundness – Is the study well designed? Are methods detailed enough to reproduce results?
Interest to Readers – Will readers find the paper interesting?
Overall Merit – Does the paper contribute value to the field?
English Level – Is the English clear and understandable?
5.Overall Recommendation
Choose one of the following:
Accept in Present Form
The paper can be accepted without changes.
Accept after Minor Revisions
Small corrections are needed. Authors will have 5 days to revise.
Reconsider after Major Revisions
Major changes are required. Authors must respond point-by-point. Usually, only two rounds of major revisions are allowed. Authors must resubmit within 10 days.
Reject
The paper has serious problems, lacks originality, or does not meet journal standards. It will not be reconsidered.
Note: Your recommendation is only visible to the editors, not to the authors. Always give clear reasons for your decision.