Reviewers

If you accept to take part in the review process of an article, you must treat the article you receive as a confidential document. This means you are not allowed to share them with anyone.

First, read the article and then take a break from it, giving you time to think. Consider the article from your perspective. You should make sure you know what the journal is looking for and have a copy of any specific reviewing criteria you need to consider.

Your reviews are extremely important to the editorial process and quality of the journal. A well-done review is also important to guide authors in revising their work and help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive and should not include any personal remarks or personal details, including your name.

Content of the Review.

• Your review should focus on the content of the manuscript (for grammar or punctuation or rewriting and reorganizing it, we have editors and copy editors who will do that). If there are numerous typos and grammatical errors, or you feel the organization is incorrect, it will suffice to just note that.
• We are interested in manuscripts that reflect the 'state of the science' and its importance. Consider if the content is accurate and up to date. Is the topic something that would be of interest to most scholars
• Is there anything the author didn't include but should have?
• If you recommend that the manuscript be revised, it's important that you provide detailed comments to guide the author on the review form in the comments section. Note what should they do to fix the paper to make it acceptable. Should they add details or additional content, replace sources?
• If you recommend that the manuscript be rejected, your narrative should indicate why, but do not spend unnecessary time on a fatally flawed manuscript.
• If you suggest the author add content, please indicate how the author should better focus the manuscript or where to cut. 
• If you suspect plagiarism, fraud or other ethical issues, share your suspicions with the editor, providing as much detail as possible

• All manuscripts submitted to OMUJs for publication are subjected to qualified reviewers' detailed and        strict peer-review process. All manuscripts are subject to double-blind reviews.

  Manuscripts accepted for full review will be reviewed by at least two external reviewers, who are experts in the same field.

  Reviewers assess the manuscript submitted to them based on academic standards in addition to OMUJs predetermined requirements to ascertain the manuscript’s quality and precision, thus providing the editor with the required comments and recommendations based on the prepared form regarding the acceptance, rejection, or request changes to the manuscript, within three weeks. In some cases, acquiring the appropriate reviewers may require an extension of the review process.

  The decision letter requesting an adequate revision is sent to the Corresponding Author (If necessary, the peer-review process is repeated).

  After fulfilling the peer-review process requirements, the editor-in-chief issues a decision regarding the manuscript's acceptance or rejection.

Writing Comments

Please write your comments in a nonjudgmental style. Begin with the positives if possible. If you believe the manuscript should be revised, please be encouraging and specific in your comments. Refrain from disparaging, critical remarks that aren't constructive.

Confidentiality.

All submitted reviews are confidential and are the property of OMUJs and may not be submitted for dissemination or publication elsewhere.

Manuscripts should be treated as confidential material. If you want to solicit the expertise of another colleague to review it, please contact Editorial before doing so.

Please delete the manuscript once your review is completed. We recommend that you keep a copy of your review form for three months.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us.

 Competing Interests

Please contact Editorial if you have any conflicts of interest in reviewing this manuscript. We will ask you to delete and destroy the manuscript, and the editorial will assign another reviewer. Conflicts of interest may include:

• A personal relationship with the author or institution that could interfere with you providing an unbiased review.
• Financial conflict, or holding a financial interest in a product, company, or organization discussed in the manuscript
• Intellectual conflict or holding a strong interest in seeing the manuscript published or not published.

We encourage you to review the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) document on Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. If you are new to reviewing, check COPE's resource, What to Consider When Asked to Peer Review a Manuscript.