Reviewer Guidelines

The Responsibility of the Peer Reviewer
Peer reviewers are tasked with critically reading and evaluating manuscripts within their area of expertise. They should provide authors with respectful, constructive, and honest feedback regarding their submissions. Peer reviewers are expected to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, suggest ways to enhance the quality and robustness of the work, and assess the relevance and originality of the manuscript.

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

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Before Reviewing
RAST kindly asks the reviewers to take the following into consideration:
1. Expertise Match:
If the manuscript topic does not sufficiently align with your area of expertise, please inform the editor as soon as possible. Feel free to recommend an alternate reviewer.

2. Availability:
Reviews should be completed within three weeks. If you cannot meet this deadline, please notify the editor and, if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer. If you have already agreed to review but can no longer meet the deadline, contact the editor promptly.

3. Conflicts of Interest:
While conflicts of interest do not necessarily disqualify you from reviewing the manuscript, it is crucial to disclose any potential conflicts to the editors before proceeding. If you have any questions about potential conflicts, do not hesitate to contact the editorial office.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

During the Review
Please keep in mind the following points when reviewing an article for RAST:
1. Content Quality and Originality
Novelty and Interest:
Evaluate whether the article is sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication.
Journal Standards:
Check if the article adheres to the journal's standards.
Research Question:
Assess the importance of the research question or state of the problems.
Originality and Appropriateness:
Consider the research's percentile within its field. Is it in the top 30% of papers in this area?
Literature Search:
Conduct a quick literature search using tools like Scopus to see if there are any existing reviews on the topic.

2. Organization and Clarity
Title:
Clearly describes the article.
Abstract:
Reflects the content of the article.
Introduction:
Accurately describes what the author hoped to achieve and clearly states the problem being investigated. Summarizes relevant research to provide context and explains findings being challenged or extended. Describes the experiment, hypotheses, and general experimental design or method.
Method:
Accurately explains how the data was collected and whether the design is suitable for answering the research question. Provides sufficient information for replication. Identifies and orders procedures meaningfully. Details of new methods if applicable. Describes sampling, equipment, and materials adequately. Clearly specifies the type of data recorded and provides precise measurements.
Results:
Explains findings in a clear and logical sequence. Ensures appropriate analysis has been conducted. Verifies the correctness of statistics. Note: Interpretation of results is not included in this section.
Conclusion/Discussion:
Claims are supported by the results and seem reasonable. Indicates how results relate to expectations and previous research. Shows if the article supports or contradicts previous theories. Explains how the research advances scientific knowledge.
Tables, Figures, Images:
Appropriately show the data and are easy to interpret and understand.

3. Ethical issues
Plagiarism:
Notify the editor if you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible.
Fraud:
Although detecting fraud can be challenging, discuss any suspicions about the authenticity of the results with the editor.
Other Ethical Concerns:
Ensure confidentiality is maintained in medical research. Identify any violations of ethical norms in the treatment of animal or human subjects and report them to the editor.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Reviewer's Recommendation

1. Confidentiality:
All submissions are confidential. Do not discuss any aspect of the submissions with a third party. If you wish to discuss the article with a colleague, consult with the editor first. Do not contact the author directly.

2. Submission of Review:
Complete the “Reviewer’s Comments” form by the due date. Your recommendation will be strongly considered when the editors make the final decision. Provide thorough and honest feedback; it is greatly appreciated.

3. Writing Comments:
Clearly indicate which comments are intended only for the editors and which can be shared with the author(s).

4. Contact:
Never hesitate to contact the editorial office with any questions or concerns.