At the IJM, we value the work done by our reviewers. As a reviewer, you provide an essential service to the process of publication excellence, help authors improve their content and benefit from being able to read cutting-edge articles prior to publication and before anyone else.

How to review articles

The review process can be very worthwhile because, in addition to giving you the satisfaction of knowing that you are directly contributing to the development of your chosen field, it allows you to hone your research and writing skills. The resources below will explain what reviewing is all about and help you write valuable reviews:

How to become a reviewer

  1. Identify the magazine(s) in our catalog that you would like to review.
  2. Contact us to indicate your interest and summarize your expertise.
  3. The editors will send you an invitation to review whenever a manuscript is submitted in your area of expertise.

We understand that our reviewers are busy, so it may not always be possible for them to accept an invitation to review. To avoid delays, please let us know as soon as possible if you cannot get an invitation to review or if a problem arises after you have taken the invitation. If you are unable to review a manuscript, please recommend an alternative reviewer.

Aspects to take into account before starting a review

  • Calendar. Inform the editor immediately if you will not be able to meet the deadline and inform us of your availability to avoid receiving invitations to review when you are not available.
  • Suitability. Do you have any reason why you should not review the submission? If in doubt, check with the journal editor.
  • Confidentiality. You should not share the content of an article you have been invited to review unless you have permission from the magazine editor. If you suspect misconduct on the part of the author, discuss it only with the editor.
  • Co-review. Inform the magazine editor if you wish to collaborate on a review with a colleague or student.

How to make a recommendation

In addition to your review comments, it would be necessary to make a general recommendation to the editor. The most common types of recommendations are:

  • Accept: No further revision is required. The manuscript is publishable in its current form.
    Most articles require revision before reaching this stage.
  • Minor revision: The article is mostly correct but will be returned to the authors for minor corrections and clarifications.
    These revisions should not involve any significant changes. However, such changes should be clearly marked. The article may then be subject to further revision.
  • Major revision: The principle of the article is sound and has a chance of being accepted but requires substantial changes.
    Authors should submit a point-by-point response to the reviewers. The article will then be submitted for further revision.
  • Rejection: The manuscript is not of sufficient quality, novelty, or importance to justify publication.
    Even when rejection is recommended, the reviewer is encouraged to share suggestions for improvement.

If the problems cannot be addressed by revision, the reviewer should recommend rejection rather than revision. The editors reserve the right to reject the article if the revisions are insufficient.

Rewards to reviewers

We appreciate the work that all of our reviewers do to help authors improve and develop their articles and support the publication process’s integrity. We want to recognize and reward the invaluable contribution they make when reviewing for the IJM.

For this reason, the IJM grants its reviewers free and permanent access to all its publications for the duration of their collaboration. This means that, as a reviewer, you will not only have access to the content already published before your incorporation to the IJM but also to all the content that is published while you are a reviewer.