Peer Review

The Malaysian Journal of Tropical Geography (MJTG) peer-review policy is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and supporting ethical research practices. MJTG’s reviewers adhere to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Peer review, in all forms, is crucial for ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. This process relies heavily on trust and requires everyone involved to act responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers are essential to this process, yet they often assume the role without adequate guidance and may not be fully aware of their ethical responsibilities. The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers outline the fundamental principles and standards that all peer reviewers should follow during the peer-review process. These guidelines aim to offer valuable guidance to researchers, serve as a reference for journals and editors in directing their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions training their students and researchers.

1. Type of Peer Review
The Malaysian Journal of Tropical Geography (MJTG) utilises a “single blind” review process, ensuring that referees remain anonymous to the author(s) throughout and after the review process.

2. Referee Selection Process
Referees are selected based on their expertise relevant to the manuscript submitted. The reviewer database of Malaysian Journal of Tropical Geography (MJTG) is continuously updated. Each manuscript submitted will be reviewed by at least one independent referee, after which the editor will make a final decision.

3. Referee reports
Referees will be asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:
•The manuscript demonstrated originality.
•The research is methodologically sound.
•The manuscript presents result clearly with rigorous analysis.
•The manuscript correctly cites previous relevant work.
•The manuscript adheres to appropriate ethical guidelines, particularly plagiarism.
•The research contributes to the knowledge and advancement of the field.

Language correction is not part of the peer-review process, but referees can suggest improvements to the language and style of the manuscript. During the final round, the editor will review the manuscript for linguistic and stylistic accuracy, and therefore may apply or recommending corrections as needed. In rare instances, the author(s) may need to do proofreading or comprehensive linguistic and style revisions by returning the manuscript.

4. Peer Review Process
Upon receiving an email invitation to review a journal article, the referee should respond by clicking the provided link to indicate whether they are able to review the manuscript. Following this, the referee can proceed with the steps outlined on the website. The referee may either fill in the comments for the author box or upload a file with their comments. Later, each reviewer is required to make an initial decision by selecting one of the options provided.

1. Accept submission: The manuscript meets the standards of the journal and is ready for the copyediting and publication process.
2. Revisions required: Minor revisions are needed, which can be re-reviewed by the referee or accepted by the editor.
3. Resubmit for review: Major revisions are required with another round of peer review.
4. Decline submission: The manuscript is rejected due to significant weakness and not meeting the journal’s standards or the journal’s focus and scope.
5. Duration of review process: The duration of the review process relies on the referees’ responsiveness. Typically, the review process will take about 1 to 3 months.
6. Final report and decision: Based on the referee report and suggestion, along with revision done by the authors, the editor will have the final say on to whether to accept or reject the manuscript. The decision will then be sent to the author(s) by email.