It's a privilege to review a manuscript written by a fellow scientist. It is, however, a time-consuming task. As a result, the Editorial Board, authors, and readers of JCC appreciate your willingness to take on this responsibility and your dedication. JCC uses a single/double-blind peer-review process that is fast, fair, and ensures that the published papers are of high quality. JCC needs reviewers who can provide informative and helpful feedback and comments on submitted manuscripts within the time frame set by the editor. Reviewers with a high level of expertise and the ability to be impartial, fair, and informative in their assessment of manuscripts are needed to keep JCC as a high-quality scientific journal.



If you have been asked to review a manuscript by JCC's Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor, please keep the following in mind:

  1. Review the manuscript objectively but constructively, as well as preparing detailed remarks to assist the authors in improving their work
  2. As needed, review several versions of a manuscript.
  3. Meeting all deadlines by providing all necessary details
  4. Making recommendations to the editor about the manuscript's suitability for publication in the journal.
  5. Declaring any possible conflicts of interest to the editor regarding the authors or the quality of a manuscript they are requested to review.
  6. Detecting and reporting suspected research misconduct
  7. Recommending alternate reviewers if the original reviewers are unable to review the manuscript for any reason.
  8. Maintaining the manuscript as a confidential document
  9. Not making any use of the work mentioned in the manuscript
  10. Avoiding direct communication with authors if the authors are identified in some way.
  11. Not identifying themselves to authors
  12. Not to forward the allocated manuscript to another reviewer
  13. Ensuring that high quality and original work is done in the manuscript
  14. Notifying the editor if he/she discovers that the assigned manuscript is being considered for publication in some other publication to his/her knowledge.
  15. Writing review report in English only.
  16. Writing a comment on the reviewed manuscript for publication.


  1. Novelty
  2. Originality
  3. Scientific reliability
  4. Significant contribution to the science
  5. Adding new aspects of an existing area of study
  6. Ethical considerations
  7. The structure of the submitted article and its relevance to the instructions for authors
  8. Content substantiation by references
  9. Spelling, punctuation, and grammar
  10. Scientific misconduct