Peer Review Process

All papers received will be submitted to a peer review process. The Editors may discard some manuscripts from the outright due to quality, plagiarism, lack of originality, fabricated result etc. After primary screening process, the selected manuscripts will be forwarded to the reviewer of the related field. The reviewer can be either external or members of the Editorial Board, though always chosen by their recognized expertise. Each paper will be reviewed by two referees separately. After evaluation, the referees will produce reports about the works reviewed, by which the papers can be

1. Accepted to publish as they are;

2. Accepted to publish with modifications or corrections;  or

3. Rejected from the start.

In case that the papers proposed are accepted but in need of modifications or corrections, the Editors will return the manuscripts to the authors, together with the referee’s reports and all the suggestions, recommendations and comments therein. To secure impartiality during the review process, all papers, as remitted to the referees, will be anonymous. Moreover, the referees’ identities will not be known, neither by the rest of the evaluation panel, nor by the authors. The final decision concerning the publication of papers belongs to the Editorial Board, having the referees a consultative role.


Become A Reviewer For Monthly Science Review

If Editor-in-Chief of Monthly Science Review contacts with you or you wish to join our community as a reviewer please consider the following terms while reviewing an article. Provided you are willing to join our community as a reviewer, please send an email to

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

While reviewing a manuscript, please consider the following:

  1. Reviewing 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 misconducts
  7. Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reasons
  8. Treating the manuscript as a confidential document
  9. Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript
  10. Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow, they identify the authors
  11. Not identifying themselves to authors
  12. Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer
  13. Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work
  14. Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge
  15. Writing review report in English only
  16. Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript

What Should Be Checked While Reviewing A Manuscript?

  1. Novelty
  2. Originality
  3. Valuable contribution to the science
  4. Adding new aspects to the existed field of study
  5. Ethical aspects
  6. Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines
  7. References provided to substantiate the content
  8. Grammar, punctuation and spelling
  9. Scientific misconduct