Guide for Reviewers

Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is a privilege. However, it is a time-consuming responsibility. Hence, the META's Editorial Board, authors, and audiences appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedication. The META adheres to a double-blind peer-review process. This journal needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turnaround time of about 6 weeks. Maintaining META as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

If META's Editor-in-Chief has invited you to review a manuscript, please consider the following:

  1. Reviewing the manuscript critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their work.
  2. Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary.
  3. Providing all required information within established deadlines.
  4. Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal.
  5. Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review.
  6. Reporting possible research misconduct.
  7. Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript.
  8. Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow they identify the authors and not identifying themselves to authors.
  9. Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer.
  10. Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work.
  11. Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge.
  12. Writing a review report in English only.


The following diagram depicts the reviewing procedure: