Reviewer Guidelines

Peer reviewers are essential to maintaining the quality and integrity of MBJ. Reviewers are asked to provide a fair, constructive and timely assessment of manuscripts within their area of expertise.

When reviewing, please consider:

• Originality and significance – Does the work make an original and meaningful contribution to the field?
• Methodology – Are the methods sound, clearly described and appropriate to the objectives?
• Results and interpretation – Are the results clearly presented and supported by the data, and are the conclusions justified?
• Clarity and structure – Is the manuscript well organised, clearly written and of appropriate length?
• Literature and referencing – Is relevant prior work adequately cited?
• Ethics – Are there any concerns regarding plagiarism, data integrity or research ethics?

Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential, declare any conflict of interest, and not use unpublished material for personal advantage. Reviews should be objective and courteous; personal criticism of authors is unacceptable. Reviewers are asked to recommend one of: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject.