Reviewer Guidelines

Role of the Peer Reviewer
Peer reviewers are responsible for critically reading and evaluating manuscripts within their area of expertise. They are expected to provide authors with respectful, constructive, and honest feedback on their submissions. This includes discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the work, suggesting ways to improve its quality and robustness, and assessing the relevance and originality of the manuscript.

RAST deeply appreciates the contributions of its reviewers. While the journal does not offer monetary compensation, reviewers generously volunteer their time and expertise to help uphold the quality of published work.

Before You Begin: Key Considerations
Before accepting or proceeding with a review, please consider the following:

  1. Expertise Match: If the manuscript topic does not sufficiently align with your area of expertise, please inform the editor as soon as possible. You are welcome to recommend an alternate reviewer.
  2. Availability: Reviews should be completed within three weeks. If you cannot meet this deadline, notify the editor promptly and suggest an alternate reviewer if possible. If you have already agreed to review but can no longer meet the deadline, contact the editor as soon as possible.
  3. Conflicts of Interest: Conflicts of interest do not necessarily disqualify you from reviewing a manuscript, but any potential conflicts must be disclosed to the editor before you proceed. If you are uncertain whether a conflict exists, contact the editorial office for guidance.

During the Review
When reviewing a manuscript for RAST, evaluate the following areas:

A. Content Quality and Originality

  • Novelty and interest: Assess whether the article is sufficiently novel and interesting to merit publication.
  • Journal standards: Check whether the article meets the journal's scope and quality standards.
  • Research question: Evaluate the importance and clarity of the research question or problem being addressed.
  • Originality: Consider the research's standing within its field. Is it among the top 30% of papers in this area?
  • Literature coverage: Conduct a quick search using tools such as Scopus to check whether existing reviews on the topic have been overlooked.

B. Organization and Clarity
Assess each section of the manuscript against the following criteria:

Section

What to Check

Title

Clearly and accurately describes the article

Abstract

Reflects the full content of the article

Introduction

States the problem clearly; summarizes relevant prior research; describes the hypotheses and general experimental design

Method

Explains how data was collected; confirms the design is appropriate for the research question; provides enough detail for replication; describes sampling, equipment, and materials adequately; specifies the type of data recorded and measurement precision

Results

Presents findings in a clear, logical sequence; confirms that appropriate analysis was conducted and that statistics are correct. Note: interpretation of results belongs in the Discussion, not this section

Conclusion/Discussion

Claims are supported by results; relates findings to prior research and expectations; explains how the work advances scientific knowledge

Tables, Figures, and Images

Data is presented clearly and is easy to interpret

C. Ethical Issues

  • Plagiarism: If you suspect the manuscript is a substantial copy of another work, notify the editor immediately and cite the suspected source in as much detail as possible.
  • Fraud: If you have any concerns about the authenticity of the results, raise them with the editor even if proof is not available.
  • Other ethical concerns: Flag any violations of ethical norms in the treatment of human or animal subjects, and ensure that appropriate confidentiality is maintained in any medical research.

Submitting Your Recommendation

  1. Confidentiality: All submissions are strictly confidential. Do not discuss any aspect of a manuscript with a third party. If you wish to consult a colleague, contact the editor first for permission. Do not contact the author directly under any circumstances.
  2. Submitting Your Review: Complete the Reviewer's Comments form by the assigned due date. Your recommendation will be given significant weight in the editors' final decision. Thorough and honest feedback is strongly encouraged and greatly valued.
  3. Writing Your Comments: Clearly indicate which comments are intended only for the editors and which may be shared with the author(s). Keep your language professional and constructive throughout.
  4. Contact: If you have any questions or concerns at any point during the review process, do not hesitate to contact the editorial office.