International Marine Science Journal

International Marine Science Journal

International Marine Science Journal – Reviewer Guidelines

Open Access & Peer-Reviewed

Submit Manuscript

Reviewer Guidelines

Standards for evaluating marine science manuscripts at IMSJ.

Excellence in Peer Review

Quality peer review is essential to scientific progress. These guidelines help reviewers provide constructive, fair evaluations that strengthen marine science publications.

Review Criteria

Scientific Rigor

Evaluate methodology, experimental design, statistical analysis, and interpretation of results.

Originality

Assess novelty of findings and contribution to marine science knowledge advancement.

Presentation

Review clarity of writing, figure quality, and logical organization of manuscript.

Review Process
  • Accept or decline invitations promptly based on expertise and availability
  • Complete reviews within agreed timeframe (typically 2-3 weeks)
  • Provide specific, constructive feedback with actionable suggestions
  • Recommend appropriate disposition (accept, revise, reject)

Confidentiality: Manuscripts are confidential documents. Do not share content, discuss with colleagues, or use information for personal advantage before publication.

Ethical Considerations

Disclose any conflicts of interest that could bias your review. If you recognize authorship through writing style or research context, inform the editor. Report suspected misconduct (plagiarism, data fabrication) to the editorial office.

Communication Standards

Prompt, professional communication is essential for efficient manuscript handling. Respond to editorial correspondence within the specified timeframes. If unavailable temporarily, notify the editorial office to enable reassignment and prevent processing delays.

Structured Reviews

Organize reviews addressing major categories: scientific merit, methodology appropriateness, results interpretation, presentation quality, and literature context. Provide specific suggestions for improvement alongside criticisms. Balance identifying weaknesses with acknowledging strengths.

Revision Reviews

When reviewing revised manuscripts, focus on whether authors adequately addressed previous concerns. New issues may arise but prioritize evaluating response to prior feedback. Revisions should demonstrate genuine engagement with reviewer suggestions and scientific improvement.

Review Resources

Access tools to support your review activities.

View Resources