Reviewer Guidelines

Yemeni Journal of Life Sciences

Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the scientific quality, integrity, and credibility of the Yemeni Journal of Life Sciences. The journal follows a structured peer review process aligned with international standards (COPE, ICMJE).

 1. Role of the Reviewer

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide an objective, critical, and constructive evaluation of submitted manuscripts
  • Assess the scientific validity, originality, and significance of the work
  • Support the editorial decision-making process

 2. Confidentiality

  • All manuscripts must be treated as strictly confidential documents
  • Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use any unpublished data for personal advantage
  • Manuscripts should not be retained or distributed

 3. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline the review if:

  • There is any personal, financial, or academic conflict of interest
  • The manuscript involves collaborators, colleagues, or competitors
  • They feel unable to provide an unbiased evaluation

 4. Timeliness

  • Reviews should be completed within 14 days
  • If additional time is required, reviewers must inform the editorial office
  • If unable to review, reviewers should decline promptly

 5. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

  • Identify potential issues such as plagiarism, duplication, or data fabrication
  • Report concerns regarding ethical approval, consent, or animal/human studies
  • Notify the editor of any suspected misconduct

 6. Structured Review Process (Important)

YJLS uses a structured peer review form. Reviewers are required to:

  • Complete all sections of the review form
  • Provide scores for scientific criteria
  • Evaluate manuscript sections individually
  • Submit both comments to authors and confidential comments to the editor

 7. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on:

Scientific Quality

  • Originality and novelty
  • Scientific significance
  • Methodological rigor
  • Data quality and integrity
  • Statistical analysis

Manuscript Structure

  • Title accuracy
  • Abstract clarity
  • Introduction relevance
  • Methods reproducibility
  • Results presentation
  • Discussion depth
  • Conclusion validity

Language and Presentation

  • Clarity and readability
  • Organization and logical flow

References

  • Relevance
  • Adequacy
  • Currency

 8. Comments to Authors

  • Comments should be clear, constructive, and professional
  • Major issues must be clearly identified
  • Minor corrections should be listed separately
  • Avoid personal or inappropriate language

 9. Confidential Comments to the Editor

  • Provide additional insights not suitable for authors
  • Highlight concerns about originality, ethics, or publication suitability
  • Indicate confidence in your evaluation

 10. Recommendation Categories

Reviewers should select one of the following:

  • Accept without changes
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject but resubmission encouraged
  • Reject

 11. Reviewer Responsibility

By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to:

  • Follow ethical standards
  • Provide a thorough and honest evaluation
  • Maintain confidentiality
  • Respect deadlines

 

The journal follows the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and adheres to international best practices in scholarly publishing.