After the article passes the plagiarism checking stage, and editor or editor section check, each manuscript will be reviewed by at least three independent referees who are within the subject area.

Peer review is a critical element of scholarly publication, and one of the major cornerstones of the scientific process. Peer Review serves two key functions:

1-Acts as a filter: Ensures research is properly verified before being published

2-Improves the quality of the research: rigorous review by other experts helps to hone key points and correct inadvertent errors

First Screen 

First Screen by Editor or editorial board

The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines.

* Yes No

The manuscript within the specialized of our journal orientation. 

* Yes No

The sobriety of manuscript language . 

 Yes No

Using update and sober international references and not including more than one conference paper. 

* Yes No

The manuscript follows the structure of a scientific article. 

* Yes No

Did all references relate to the current work? 

* Yes No

Paper Novality?

*

  0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 

The Decision

 Refer the manuscript to the reviewers with no comments. 

Refer the manuscript to the reviewers and send your comments with reviewer comments. 

Return the manuscript to the researchers for considering the following comments. 

Return the manuscript to the researchers for grammar corrections 

Refused the manuscript Sent the manuscript for Editorial board meeting

Comments

Write your comments

Suggest Reviewers

Please write Name, e-mail, phon no., and affiliation for every reviewer

Review Form

Please Read Reviewer Guidelines

Please select a number to indicate your level of agreement with the following questions. Select the lowest value (1 Star *) to indicate that you disagree entirely, or the highest value (5 Stars *****) to indicate that you agree completely.

The Manuscript is within the scope of TJES journal

* 1 Satr * 2 Satrs ** 3 Satrs *** 4 Satrs **** 5 Satrs *****

The Manuscript title reflects the content and purpose of the research.

* 1 Star * 2 Satrs * 3 Satrs *** 4 Satrs **** 5 Satrs *****

Your comments about Manuscript title (optional)

 

The abstract includes information important for understanding the content of the Manuscript?

 1 Star * 2 Satrs ** 3 Satrs *** 4 Satrs **** 5 Satrs *****

Your comments about abstract? (optional)

 

The introduction clearly defines the purpose and objective of the work

* 1 Star * 2 Satrs ** 3 Satrs *** 4 Satrs **** 5 Satrs *****

Your comments about the introduction (optional)

A review of previous researches are good and up to date?

* 1 Satr * 2 Satrs ** 3 Satrs *** 4 Satrs **** 5 Satrs *****

The methodology is clearly and adequate

* 1 Satr * 2 Satrs ** 3 Satrs *** 4 Stars **** 5 Satrs *****

your comments about methodology (optional)

 

The results and discussions are adequate?

 1 Star * 2 Satrs ** 3 Stars *** 4 Satrs **** 5 Satrs *****

your comments about results and discussions (optional)

 

The conclusions is based and contributes to the discharge of treated problems?

* 1 Satr * 2 Satrs ** 3 Satrs *** 4 Satrs **** 5 Satrs *****

Your comments about conclusions (optional)

 

The references reflect the topicality of the article, and up to date?

* 1 Star * 2 Stars ** 3 Stars *** 4 Stars **** 5 Stars *****

The Manuscript is free of technical errors?

* 1 Star * 2 Stars ** 3 Stars *** 4 Stars **** 5 Stars *****

The figures are clear & do clearly convey the intended message?

 -Figures and text are well-balanced and complementary insufficient to illustrate concepts 

-Not all data is represented graphically that should be 

-Some illustration are redundant figures are not needed for this subject matter included figures are irrelevant to the subject matter

The Tables are clear & do clearly convey the intended message?

 1 Star * 2 Stars ** 3 Satrs *** 4 Stars **** 5 Stars *****

please rate the novelty of the information?

 1 Star * 2 Stars ** 3 Stars *** 4 Stars **** 5 Stars *****

Did this Manuscript make sense?

 Yes No

Comments to the Authors

Comments to TJES Editor?

Reviewer Recommendation

*

  Accepted without modifications. Accepted with minor corrections. Accepted with major modifications. Rejected.  

Return manuscript after reply from Author If you have corrections?

* Yes No

Checking the Manuscript Modification by Reviewer

This form used to check the revised manuscript 

Does the Author Consider all your comments?

* Yes No

Please Specify?* 

-The Author(s) made all corrections. 

-The Author(s) made most of the corrections 

-The Author(s) made some of the corrections. 

-He didn't make any changes changes

 

Comments (Please specify: where the Author's failure to answer the reviewer's questions)?

*

Suggest Reviewers if any?

Please write Name, e-mail, phon no., and affiliation for every reviewer

Final Check By Section Editor

Please answer with “Yes” or “No”. if your answer is No then insert your comments in the comments box. If all answers are “Yes” then put No comments.

The researchers modified the Manuscript considering all the required adjustments as requested by the editorial board. *

 Yes No No comments from Editorial Board

The researchers modified the Manuscript considering all the required adjustments as requested by the reviewers *

 Yes No

Plagiarism ratio of less than 20%? *

 Yes No No Plagiarism report attached

The Manuscript is printed according to the TJES template *

 Yes No

Manuscript language is sobriety? *

 Yes No

Your comments *

Please write your opinion if one or two reviewers reject the Manuscript? Do you think the reviewer's notes amount to a rejection of the Manuscript? 

 

Other comments if any

The Decision
Please choose one *

-Refer the Manuscript to the researcher to consider the above comments 

-Send Manuscript to Chief in Editor for issuing an acceptance letter. 

-Send Manuscript to Chief in Editor for issuing an acceptance letter after modified the article according to TJES template. 

-Reject the manuscript?