Reviewer Guidelines

Thank you for your willingness to contribute to the peer review process of JRST. Your expertise in radiation science, dosimetry, and related fields helps maintain the quality and integrity of our publications.

🌟 Join Our Review Panel

Peer reviewers with expertise in radiation physics, dosimetry, detection systems, laser techniques, and related fields play a crucial role in advancing radiation science. Your expert evaluation ensures that only rigorous, methodologically sound research is published in JRST.

Become a Reviewer

The Importance of Peer Review

Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing. As a reviewer, you help:

🎯
Ensure Quality
Evaluate the scientific rigor, methodology, and validity of research findings
🔬
Advance Science
Help authors improve their manuscripts and contribute to scientific progress
⚖️
Maintain Integrity
Uphold ethical standards and identify potential issues with research
📚
Stay Current
Keep up with the latest research in your field while reviewing

Review Process Overview

📋 Review Type: JRST uses a double-blind peer review process. Neither authors nor reviewers know each other's identities.
1
Invitation to Review
You receive an email invitation with the manuscript title, abstract, and keywords. Accept or decline within 3 days, indicating any conflicts of interest.
2
Access Manuscript
Upon acceptance, access the full manuscript and supplementary materials through our secure review system. Download all necessary files.
3
Conduct Review
Thoroughly evaluate the manuscript using our review criteria. Complete your review within 3-4 weeks of acceptance.
4
Submit Recommendation
Submit your detailed review with constructive feedback and a clear recommendation: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject.
5
Optional Re-review
For manuscripts requiring major revisions, you may be invited to review the revised version to ensure concerns have been addressed.

Evaluation Criteria

When reviewing a manuscript, consider the following key aspects:

☢️
Scientific Soundness
  • Radiation measurements are accurate and well-described
  • Dosimetric methodology is rigorous
  • Instrumentation and calibration are properly reported
  • Uncertainty analysis is included where appropriate
🎯
Originality & Significance
  • Novel contribution to radiation science
  • Clear advancement over prior dosimetric work
  • Potential impact on radiation protection or applications
  • Addresses a meaningful gap in the literature
🔬
Technical Rigor
  • Appropriate experimental or computational design
  • Monte Carlo simulations validated if used
  • Detection systems properly characterized
  • Reproducibility and statistical analysis adequate
📊
Results & Analysis
  • Dose/fluence data clearly presented
  • Figures and spectra properly labeled
  • Comparison with benchmark data provided
  • Uncertainty budgets reported
💭
Discussion & Scope
  • Results placed in radiation science context
  • Limitations and sources of error acknowledged
  • Conclusions supported by dosimetric data
  • Clinical studies or patient outcomes NOT in scope
📚
Literature & Presentation
  • Current radiation science references cited
  • IAEA/ICRU standards referenced where applicable
  • Clear and concise English writing
  • Professional figure/table quality

Structuring Your Review

A well-structured review helps authors understand and address your concerns effectively. We recommend the following format:

1. Overall Assessment (Summary Paragraph)

Provide a brief overview of the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses. State your general recommendation and the main reasons for it.

2. Major Comments

List significant issues that must be addressed for publication. Be specific about what needs improvement and why.

  • Methodological concerns
  • Missing experimental controls
  • Interpretation issues
  • Statistical problems
  • Missing key literature
3. Minor Comments

List smaller issues that would improve the manuscript but don't affect its core validity.

  • Typos and grammar
  • Figure/table improvements
  • Clarification requests
  • Additional references
4. Recommendation
✓ Accept
Minor Revisions
Major Revisions
✗ Reject
5. Confidential Comments to Editor (Optional)

Provide any concerns you don't want to share with authors, such as suspicions of plagiarism or ethical issues.

Best Practices for Reviewers

✅ Do:

  • Be constructive and respectful in your comments
  • Provide specific, actionable feedback
  • Focus on scientific merit, not writing style
  • Acknowledge the manuscript's strengths
  • Suggest ways to improve the work
  • Be fair and objective in your evaluation
  • Complete your review within the agreed timeframe
  • Disclose any conflicts of interest
  • Maintain confidentiality of the review process

❌ Don't:

  • Use harsh or disrespectful language
  • Make vague criticisms without explanations
  • Demand unnecessary experiments or revisions
  • Reject based on disagreement with conclusions if methods are sound
  • Request citations of your own work unnecessarily
  • Attempt to identify authors or break double-blind review
  • Share manuscript contents before publication
  • Use ideas from the manuscript in your own work

Review Timeline

Stage Timeframe Action Required
Invitation Response Within 3 days Accept or decline review invitation
Initial Review 3-4 weeks Complete and submit full review
Re-review (if needed) 2 weeks Evaluate revised manuscript
⏰ Extensions: If you need more time, contact the editor before the deadline. We understand that reviews take time, but timely completion helps authors receive faster decisions.

Ethics and Confidentiality

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are privileged communications. You must:

  • Not share the manuscript with anyone without editor permission
  • Not use information from the manuscript for your own benefit
  • Delete all manuscript files after completing your review
  • Not attempt to contact the authors directly

Conflicts of Interest

Decline to review if you have any of the following relationships with the authors:

  • Current or recent collaborator (within 3 years)
  • Same institution or department
  • Close personal relationship
  • Financial interest in the research
  • Strong bias for or against the research topic

Ethical Concerns

If you suspect ethical issues, notify the editor immediately:

  • Plagiarism or duplicate publication
  • Fabricated or manipulated data
  • Unethical research conduct
  • Inappropriate authorship
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest

Reviewer Recognition

We value and recognize the contributions of our reviewers:

🏆
Annual Recognition
Outstanding reviewers are acknowledged in our annual report
📜
Review Certificate
Receive a certificate for each completed review
🔗
Publons/ORCID
Reviews can be verified through Publons and linked to ORCID
💰
Discount on APCs
Active reviewers receive discounts on article processing charges

Sample Review Comments

✅ Good Example:

"The methodology is generally sound, but I recommend including a control group for comparison (see lines 156-178). This would strengthen your conclusions about the treatment effect. Additionally, please clarify the statistical test used for Table 2 (currently not specified). Consider also discussing recent work by Smith et al. (2025) that addresses similar questions."
❌ Poor Example:

"The methodology is weak and the results are not convincing. This paper needs major improvements before it can be published."

Notice how the good example provides specific, actionable feedback with line numbers and suggestions, while the poor example is vague and unhelpful.

Ready to Contribute?

Join our panel of expert reviewers and help advance scientific knowledge

Apply to Become a Reviewer
📧 Questions About Reviewing?
Contact our editorial office for any questions about the review process:
Email: media.gcd@src.edu.iq
Phone: +964 123 456 7890