It is an honor to read and comment on a scientific colleague's manuscript. However, the task requires a lot of time. The Editorial Board, authors, and readers of KUJAS are grateful for your willingness to take on this obligation and commitment. KUJAS follows a triple-blind peer-review procedure that is quick, impartial, and guarantees the high caliber of articles published. In order to do this, KUJAS needs reviewers who can respond to submitted manuscripts within three weeks with insightful and beneficial comments. Reviewers with a high level of expertise and the capacity to be unbiased, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts are essential to keeping KUJAS a scientific journal of the highest caliber.



Please take into account the following if the Editor-in-Chief of KUJAS has asked you to review a manuscript:

  1. Preparing in-depth comments about the manuscript and critically but constructively reviewing it are two ways to help authors improve their work.
  2. Reviewing a manuscript in as many different revisions as necessary.
  3. Giving all necessary information by the deadlines set.
  4. Recommending whether or not the manuscript should be published in the journal to the editor.
  5. Any potential conflicts of interest involving the authors or the content of a manuscript they have been asked to review should be disclosed to the editor.
  6. Reporting possible research misconduct.
  7. If they are unable to review the manuscript for any reason, suggest substitute reviewers.
  8. Treating the manuscript as a secret.
  9. Not utilizing the work detailed in the manuscript in any way.
  10. Not getting in touch with authors straight away if they manage to identify them.
  11. Not stating their authorship.
  12. Not giving another reviewer the assigned manuscript.
  13. Ensuring the originality and quality of the manuscript.
  14. If the assigned manuscript is, to their knowledge, being considered for any other publication, they should let the editor know.
  15. Writing an English-only review report.
  16. Creating a commentary about the manuscript under review for publication.


 1. Novelty.

 2. Uniqueness.

 3. Consistent with science.

 4. Contribution to science that is worthwhile.

 5. Adding a fresh angle to the field of study that already exists.

 6. The moral aspects.

 7. The submitted article's format and its applicability to the authors' instructions.

 8. Support the content, by updated references.

 9. Spelling, punctuation, and grammar should be considered.

 10. Scientific deception.