Reviewer Guidelines

Invitation to Review

Manuscripts submitted to Journal of Textile and Clothing Science (JTCS) are reviewed by not less than two specialists i.e. reviewers. Reviewers are solicited to assess the quality of the manuscript (manuscript) and to give a recommendation editorial manager on whether a manuscript can be accepted, requires revisions or should be rejected.

We ask reviewers to:

  • accept or decay any solicitations i.e. review request immediately, considering the manuscript title and abstract;
  • suggest alternative reviewers if invitation/review request must be declined;
  • request an augmentation on the off chance that additional time is required to form a report.

As a part of the appraisal, reviewers will be asked:

  • to rate the originality, scientific soundness, significance, presentation quality, interest to the readers and English level of the submitted manuscript;
  • to give a general suggestion to the publication of the manuscript;
  • to give a detailed, helpful review report;


Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Reviewers ought not to consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting because of competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or associations with any of the authors, organizations, or establishments associated with the papers. Special data or thoughts got through peer review must be kept secret and not utilized for individual preferred standpoint.

Timely Review Reports

JTCS means to give a productive and great publishing service to authors and to mainstream researchers. We request that reviewers help by giving survey reports in a timely manner. It would be ideal if you contact the editor on the off chance that you require an extension to review deadline.

Rating the Manuscript

Please rate the following aspects of the manuscript:

  • Originality/Novelty: Is the issue unique and all around characterized? Do the outcomes give a progress in current learning?
  • Significance: Are the outcomes deciphered suitably? Is it accurate to say that they are significant? Are all conclusions defended and bolstered by the outcomes? Are theories and hypotheses deliberately distinguished accordingly?
  • Quality of Presentation: Is the article written in a proper way? Are the information and investigations displayed fittingly? Are the most noteworthy models for the introduction of the outcomes utilized?
  • Scientific Soundness: is the study accurately planned and in fact sound? Are the investigations performed with the most noteworthy specialized norms? Is the information sufficiently hearty to make the inferences? Are the techniques, apparatuses, programming, and reagents portrayed with adequate points of interest to enable another specialist to imitate the outcomes?
  • Interest to the Readers: Interest to the Readers: Are the conclusions intriguing for the readership of the Journal? Will the paper pull in a wide readership, or be of intrigue just to a predetermined number of individuals? (if it’s not too much trouble see the Aims and Scope of the journal)
  • Overall Merit: Is there a general advantage to publishing this work? Takes the necessary steps give a progress towards the present learning? Do the authors have tended to an essential long-standing inquiry with savvy tests?
  • English Level: Is the English dialect proper and understandable?

Manuscripts submitted to JTCS ought to meet the most elevated standards of publication ethics:

  • Manuscripts should only report results which have not been submitted or published some time recently, even to some extent.
  • Manuscripts must be unique and ought not to reuse content from another source without suitable reference. 
  • On the off chance that reviewers end up noticeably mindful of such logical offense or extortion, unoriginality or whatever other unscrupulous conduct identified with the manuscript, they ought to raise these worries with the editor immediately.

Overall Recommendation

It would be ideal if you give a general suggestion to the publication of the manuscript as follows:

Accept in present form

The manuscript makes a substantial and unique contribution to current learning, is obviously exhibited, and portrays the approach with adequate points of interest to be irrefutable.

Minor revisions

The manuscript could be satisfactory for publication, however, would profit either by particular changes to enhance the general quality or from adjustments to minor methodological blunders (that don’t change the finishes of the paper). Reviewers may request for another review of revised manuscripts.

Major revisions

There is some legitimacy in the article; however, it neglects to meet every one of the prerequisites for publication. Reviewers ought to obviously and particularly say zones for development and, if conceivable, give references to substantiate the remarks made. A modified adaptation of the article will, for the most part, be sent to the reviewers for further remark.


The article has genuine blemishes, makes no unique commitment, or the measure of work required to make it publishable couldn’t be finished in a sensible measure of time. Reviewers ought to help the authors by proposing how the manuscript could be modified to convey it to a publishable standard. A chance to revise the manuscript may be offered to the authors For this situation, the reviewers will, for the most part, be welcome to remark on the changed form.

Note that your recommendation is only visible only journal editors, not to the authors.

Review Reports

Review reports should contain

A brief synopsis (one short passage) laying out the point of the paper and its principle commitments. Broad remarks highlighting regions of quality and shortcoming. These remarks ought to be sufficiently particular for authors to have the capacity to react.

Specific remarks alluding to line numbers, tables or figures. Reviewers require not remark on arranging issues that don’t dark the significance of the paper, as these will be tended to by editors.

Editing of Review Reports

JTCS editors never edit reviewer remarks expected for the authors. Reviewers are along these lines made a request to make reasonable remarks and to utilize proper dialect. Private remarks to the editors can be made in a committed box on the review form.

Volunteer to be a Reviewer for JTCS?

In the event that you are keen on evaluating articles for JTCS, please register at the following link: 

The chief editor will send you a notification once approved.

Back to top button