REVIEWERS PAGE

Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is a privilege. However, it is a time-consuming responsibility. Hence, JCCJ’s Editorial Board, authors, and audiences appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedication. JCCJ adheres to a double-blind peer-review process that is rapid, fair, and ensures a high quality of articles published. In so doing, JCCJ needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turn around time of about 4 weeks. Maintaining JCCJ as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts.

REVIEWERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES

(International Criminal Law - Reviewers (iclj.ir)

If JCCJ’s Editor-in-Chief has invited you to review a manuscript, please consider the following:

1. Reviewing manuscript critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about; the manuscript to help authors improve their work;
2. Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary;
3. Providing all required information within established deadlines;
4. Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal;
5. Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review;
6. Reporting possible research misconducts;
7. Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reasons;
8. Treating the manuscript as a confidential document;
9. Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript;
10. Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow they identify the authors;
11. Not identifying themselves to authors;
12. Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer;
13. Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work;
14. Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge;
15. Writing review report in English only;
16. Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript.

WHAT SHOULD BE CHECKED WHILE REVIEWING A MANUSCRIPT?

1. Novelty;
2. Originality;
3. Scientific Reliability;
4. Valuable contribution to the science;
5. Adding new aspects to the existed field of study;
6. Ethical aspects;
7. Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines;
8. References provided to substantiate the content;
9. Grammar, punctuation and spelling;
10. Scientific misconduct.