Reviewers Guidelines

JOMATECH considers Peer Review as essential component in the process of scholarly publishing because it is the popular method for validation of scholarly works in publishing process. JOMATECH depends on peer review procedure to maintain the quality, validity and cogency of articles. The peer review also ensures the integrity of the journal. The main objectives of JOMATECH Peer review process is to serve as a sieve that certifies validity of an article before it is published. In so doing, the quality of the article is improved by the inputs of experts peer reviewers.

  1. Competence
    The article sent to a reviewer must be in relevant area of expertise in general and specific context.
  2. Period of Review
    The average period of reviewing an article shall be between 24hours and one week. If a reviewer cannot conduct the review let the editor know immediately, and possibly may advise the editor of alternative reviewers.
  3. Area conflicts of interest
    If a reviewer identifies a potential area of conflict, it is advisable that the attention of the editor be drawn to the matter. That however, does not necessarily eliminate the reviewer from reviewing other articles.
  4. Confidentiality of the Review
    Complete confidentiality is required and information on an article shall, under no circumstances, be disclosed to a third party.
  5. Review criteria
    Depending on the nature of the article, reviewer is expected evaluate the article based on certain criteria. Generally, a reviewer shall use the following criteria to evaluate an article:
    1. Originality and Appropriateness - how sufficiently new and interesting is the article to warrant publication? What contribution does it make to the existing body of knowledge? Has the article sufficiently abided by JOMATECH standards?
    2. Structure - Is the arrangement of the article in terms of sections and headings clearly laid out?
      For instance:
      1. Title: Must clearly describe the article
      2. Abstract: Should reflect the content of the article
      3. Introduction: should adequately describe what the author wished to achieve precisely, by clearly stating what the research problem is, methodology followed, findings and policy implications in summary form.
      4. Review of literature: article should build upon previous works in terms of relevant concepts, theories and empirical works. Any important work that has been omitted should be highlighted by the reviewer.
      5. Methodology (where applicable): Precise explanation on how the data was collected through standardized instrument(s) and procedure should be provided by the author. The procedure must be ordered meaningfully and all new methods developed should be adequately explained. Sampling techniques and sample size determination must be appropriate. Statistical procedure adopted for data analyses must also be clearly explained.
      6. Results and Discussion (where applicable): the findings should be described clearly, detailed and in logical manner. The results should be reasonable and somewhat relate positively or negatively to expectations and outcome of some previous works. The statistical outputs and interpretations should be correct. Tables and figures should be informative to the reader and must be numbered properly. Where ambiguity exists, reviewer should make recommendations on what is the appropriate thing to do.
      7. Conclusion: the whole work should be summarised in few paragraphs to capture the essence of the whole work in terms of the problem, methodology used, findings, policy implications and recommendations. The conclusion should explain how the work has contributed the body of existing knowledge.
      8. References: These must be accurate and appropriate by adhering to acceptable referencing style (preferably APA style) in terms of in-text citations and list of references at the end of the work.
      9. Language: Standard English should be used by authours. If an article contains grammatical errors or is poorly written, a reviewer may not need to correct the English. The editor’s attention should be drawn to that via reviewer’s comments on the article.
  6. Ethical Issues
    JOMATECH maintains a zero tolerance policy on plagiarism. Attention of the editor should be drawn to any part of an article that is suspected to have been copied from a previous work, possibly with the details of the previous work. Similarly, article that has research procedures that display total disregard for sensitive environmental consideration should be reported to the editor.
  7. Period of Review
    JOMATECH provides reviewers with assessment form with options to choose on the various elements of the article under review. The report form contains the key elements of your review, addressing the all the issue explained above. A space is provided for comments of the reviewer. The comments should provide insights on the strength, weakness or deficiencies of the article. Reviewer should clearly identify areas of the article that require revision. Such comments and observations should as much as possible be polite, beneficial, and constructive. At the end of the evaluation form, a reviewer is required to make recommendations regarding an article. The following are the options to choose in classifying the status of the article:
    1. The article is published as it is
    2. The article is publishable subject to minor amendments
    3. The article is publishable subject to major amendments
    4. The article is not publishable

Once the evaluation is completed, it should be send back to the editor through the journal’s email –