Guidelines for Reviewers

The Tropical Journal of Natural Product Research is highly committed to publishing high quality research findings within the shortest possible time. To achieve this objective, the contributions of reviewers in the peer-review process is commendable.

The relevance of Reviewers to academic excellence cannot be overemphasized. If you have accepted an invitation to review, we thank you in advance for agreeing to review a manuscript. To this end, some level of responsibility is undertaken by the Reviewers. Hence, the following Guidelines listed below will be very useful to the Reviewers.

  1. Exploitation of manuscript under review: Citing, use of manuscript under review, by the reviewer is prohibited. Reviewers should not cite a manuscript or refer to the work it describes before it has been published, and to refrain from using the information it contains for the advancement of their own research work.
  2. A reviewer should consciously adopt a positive, impartial attitude towards the manuscript under review. Reviewers position should be that of the author's ally, with the aim of promoting excellent, effective and accurate scientific communication.
  3. Manuscript should be returned to the editor immediately if the reviewer is unable to assess the article impartially.
  4. The editor gratefully receives a reviewer's recommendations, but since the editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, a reviewer should not expect the editor to honour his or her every recommendation.
  5. Timely completion of review: Reviewer should complete the review of articles timeously and expeditiously, within two weeks. Failure to complete the review within the specified time, the editor should be informed.
  6. Reviewers are not allowed to discuss with the authors of the manuscript under review. The Editor-in-Chief or the Editor should be contacted first.
  7. Acceptability of papers: Reviewers are kindly advised not make any specific statement about acceptability of a paper in his comments for transmission to the author, but should advise the editor on sheet provided.
  8. Your criticism, arguments, and suggestions concerning that paper will be most useful to the editor if they are carefully documented.
  9. Reviewer's recommendations to the editor is highly respected, but since the editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, a reviewer should not expect the editor to honour his or her every recommendation.
  10. You are not requested to correct mistake/s in grammar, but any help in this regard will be appreciated.

Template for Technical Review

  1. Scientific reliability of the article
  2. The objectives of the article should be met
  3. Is the title suggestive of the article’s content?
  4. Justification of research should be clearly stated
  5. Is the article appropriately organized and are the headings indicative of content?
  6. Use of established and standard methods in executing the research work
  7. Is the Research question(s) clearly and objectively addressed?
  8. Are the References up to date, satisfactory and relevant? Any glaring omissions?
  9. Does the article conform to International Ethical guidelines?
  10. Is there clarity of writing?
  11. Is the writing style satisfactory?
  12. Relevance of the figures and table, clarity of legends and titles.

ISSN: 2616-0684 (Print)
ISSN: 2616-0692 (Online)
DOI: 10.26538/tjnpr
Index Copernicus Value (ICV) for 2017: 59.83
Scopus citescore 0.3 (2020)

Indexing & Abstracting

citescore 0.3 (2020)

j-gate logo

International Innovative Journal Impact Factor

African Index Medicus


Index Copernicus International

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Crossref Content Registration logo

WorldCat Discovery Service

Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research