You will receive an email requesting you to review the manuscript submitted to our Geopersia as following:
In this email you will be provided the manuscripts abstract and two links.
"I cordially invite you to review the manuscript which has been submitted to Geopersia journal of the University of Tehran.
The abstract appears at the end of this letter. Please let me know as soon as possible if you will be able to accept my invitation to review BY CLICKING ON ONE OF THE OPTIONS AT THE END OF THIS LETTER -- AGREED, DECLINED. Please click the appropriate link at the bottom of the page to automatically register your reply with our online manuscript submission and review system.
Please review this manuscript to …. …. …..
To respond automatically, click below:
To access the manuscript in journal website, click the link below:
If you decline the editorial office of our Geopersia will be informed of your response and we will forward the article to a new reviewer.
If you click on the agree link, after reading the abstract, you will receive a second email as follow in which you are offered some explanations and a link to the main text and files of the manuscript.
"Thank you for agreeing to review the above-mentioned manuscript for Geopersia. Please kindly complete your review within the next 2 weeks time.
In the review page, there is a space for "Comments to Author" and a space for "Comments to the Editor." Please be sure to put your comments to the author specifically in the appropriate space.
To access the manuscript, login to the site at http://geopersia.ut.ac.ir/
For direct access to the paper please follow this link: http://geopersia.ut.ac.ir/reviewer?_ad=MTUyNjI2M0IzOTJBMjQ3QTM3MkEyNjI5NkMyMjc4N0U2NDdDN0Y3RTc3NjkzRDc4N0I3NzcxNzk2ODdE
Once you logged in, the Main Menu will be displayed. Please click on the Reviewer Center, where you will find the manuscript listed under "Pending Assignments." You can click on the manuscript title from this point or you can click on the "View Details" button to begin reviewing the manuscript.
All communications regarding this manuscript are privileged. Any conflict of interest, suspicion of duplicate publication, fabrication of data or plagiarism must immediately be reported to us."
Please keep your emails receiving from our office till the end of your review process. You may need to return to them after your review completed to get into the system to load your review results.
More points to consider
Check that you have enough time
Reviewing an article can be quite time consuming. Please check if you will have sufficient time before the deadline stipulated in the invitation to conduct a thorough review.
Please consider the deadline for review completion when accepting to review and manage
deadlines. If you feel the review will take you longer to complete than normal, please contact the editor to discuss the matter. As a general guideline, if you know you will not be able to complete a review within the time frame requested, you should decline to review the paper
If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible. If you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to, or discussed with, others. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Peer review is confidential, and therefore information about the review (e.g. review reports, correspondence with the editor) cannot be shared with 3rd parties.
Reviewer identity is generally not shared with the author
we do not share the identity of the reviewer with the author. To help us protect your identity, please do not reveal your name within the text of your review. It also implies you should not attempt to contact the author.
Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the article adhere to the journal's standards? Is the research question an important one? In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might be helpful to think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in? Is it in the top 25% of papers in this field? You might wish to do a quick literature search using tools such as Scopus to see if there are any reviews of the area. If the research has been covered previously, pass on references of those works to the editor.
Layout and format
you should note this in your review.
Does it clearly describe the article?
Does it reflect the content of the article?
Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated?
Please check the content and if possible make suggestions for improvements. Do the figures and tables inform the reader, are they an important part of the story? Do the figures describe the data accurately?
Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
The author(s) should explain in words what he/she/they discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.
Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, while it may make it more difficult to understand the science, you do not need to correct the English. You should bring this to the attention of the editor.
If the article builds upon previous research does it reference that work appropriately? Are there any important works that have been omitted? Are the references accurate?
Once you have completed your evaluation of the article the next step is to write up your report. Below are some key points to consider during this task.
Provide a quick summary
Please complete the evaluation form by clicking on "evaluation form", checking various aspects of the paper, others will request an overview of your remarks. Either way, it is helpful to provide a quick summary of the article at the beginning of your report.
Highlight key elements
The report should contain the key elements of your review, addressing the points outlined in the preceding section. Commentary should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including your name.
Explain your judgment
Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments.
Classify your recommendation
When you make a recommendation regarding an article, it is worth considering the categories the editor most likely uses for classifying the article:
-Reject (explain reason in report)
-Accept without revision
-Revise (either major or minor)
Identify the required revision
Clearly explain the kind of revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article.
The final decision of whether to accept or reject a particular manuscript lies with the editor. The editor plays no part in this decision. The editor will weigh all views and may call for a third opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision.
The acceptance will be finalized in our Editorial Board meeting.