Become a Reviewer

How Do I Become a Reviewer for JRIST?

If you are interested in becoming a peer reviewer, please log in to your profile and complete the “Role” section. Make sure that the “Reviewer” box is checked and identify your reviewing interests, including areas of expertise (e.g., quantitative methods, case reports, manual lymphatic drainage, etc.).

If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Jaydip Kumar, at editors@jrist.org.

Already a Reviewer?

Thank you for agreeing to review a manuscript for the Journal of Recent Innovation in Science and Technology(JRIST).

This document provides recommendations for undertaking a manuscript review. The following sections contain guiding questions and recommendations based on research and best practices in peer review. You do not need to answer every question but address those that require comment or feedback. All reviews should include an opening statement and address global comments.

JRIST supports the development and use of robust international reporting guidelines such as the CONSORT Statement for randomized controlled trials. However, as JRIST also encourages submissions from newer authors and researchers, reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive feedback beyond checklist evaluations. You may attach relevant reporting guidelines along with your review if applicable.

Review Overview

Please verify the following before accepting a review:

  • The article matches your area of expertise. If you can only address certain aspects, note this in your review.
  • You have no conflict of interest. If one exists, disclose it to the editor. Examples include personal, institutional, or financial relationships.
  • You have enough time to complete the review within the specified deadline (typically 3–5 hours). Contact the editor if an extension is needed.

Ethical Issues

  • If you suspect plagiarism, notify the editor and include source citations.
  • Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript. Do not share, discuss, or use its content for any other purpose.
  • Keep your identity anonymous. Remove personal identifiers from any file properties or tracked changes in Word.

Writing Your Review

  • Be helpful and constructive — provide actionable feedback aimed at improving the paper.
  • Number your comments and reference line numbers for clarity.
  • State issues clearly, explain reasoning, and suggest solutions when possible.
  • Request supporting references if statements appear subjective or unverified.
  • Include positive comments recognizing strengths or innovations.
  • Clarify region-specific terminology or regulations when necessary.
  • You are not responsible for correcting grammar or punctuation unless errors affect comprehension.

When You Upload Your Review

  • Rate the paper for the editor (this rating is confidential).
  • Be prepared to recommend one of the following:
    • Accept as is
    • Minor revisions (no new peer review required)
    • Revise and resubmit (requires further peer review)
    • Reject
  • You may also provide confidential comments for the editor only.

The Review Process

Note: Some questions below may not apply to all manuscript types (e.g., education or review articles). Mark as “N/A” where necessary.

Opening Statement

Provide a brief summary (3–6 lines) of the study’s objectives and key points. If your review is limited to certain areas of expertise, mention that here.

Global Comments

  • Is the topic original and relevant to JRIST’s scope?
  • Does the study contribute to existing knowledge?
  • Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
  • Are conclusions consistent with data and the abstract?
  • Is the manuscript clearly organized and easy to follow?
  • Is the language clear, concise, and professional?
  • Are there any potential biases or ethical concerns?

Specific Sections

Title

Is it concise and reflective of the content?

Abstract

Does it accurately summarize the key elements (Background, Methods, Results, Conclusion)? Is the conclusion balanced?

Introduction
  • Is the background sufficient to understand the study’s relevance?
  • Are sources current and primarily from peer-reviewed research?
  • Are research gaps clearly identified and logically lead to this study?
  • Is the research question or hypothesis clearly stated?
Methods
  • Design: Is the study design clearly described and appropriate?
  • Subjects/Participants: Are recruitment, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and sample size justified?
  • Interventions: Are treatments, timing, and procedures clearly described and consistent?
  • Outcome Measures: Are data collection methods reliable and valid? Are confounders measured?
  • Human Subjects Protection: Was informed consent obtained and IRB approval mentioned?
Results
  • Are results logically presented and consistent with methods?
  • Do tables/figures support understanding and match the text?
  • Are statistical results clearly reported and appropriate?
  • For qualitative studies, do quotes support findings logically?
Discussion & Conclusions
  • Do results address the research question?
  • Are findings compared to existing literature?
  • Are study limitations discussed?
  • Are future research directions suggested?
References
  • Are citations current, relevant, and from authoritative sources?
  • Are references formatted correctly and consistently?
Additional Materials (Tables, Figures, Images)
  • Do visuals enhance understanding or repeat text unnecessarily?
  • Are they accurate, clearly labeled, and consistently formatted?
  • Is confidentiality maintained in patient photos (with consent noted)?