Reviewer Guidelines

  • We ensure that the peer-review process is fair, unbiased (single blind review system-where reviewer recognizes author but author does not recognize reviewer) and timely.
  • We express our sincere gratitude to all our reviewers for their long standing support, their effort and time in evaluating the manuscripts. The peer-review process converts the preliminary manuscript submission into a citable standard publication. It improves the scientific merit and presentation quality for better comprehension by wide range of readers.
  • The potential and active reviewers are identified based on author suggestion and the bibliographical knowledge.
  • The reviewers’ evaluations and comments play a crucial role in taking the final decision on the manuscript in consultation with the editors and considering multiple contributing factors such the relevance and impact of the research work. For this we adhere to the COPE guidelines. Reviewers can decline to comments if they find any conflict of interest with the manuscript.
  • The reviewers are encouraged to be in contact with the assigning Editor. Sensitive issues such as conflict of interest, plagiarism, published data need to be submitted to the assigning Editor whereas the recommendations and critical evaluations regarding the content of the manuscript needs to be submitted to both the editor and the author.
  • The process of review and recommendations are confidential since the unpublished manuscripts are classified in nature. Review needs to focus mainly on improving the scientific merit of the manuscript and needs to be very objective in nature.
  • Personal criticism is strictly prohibited in the review comments. The review comments should have sufficient clarity with supporting references. Please include the strength, weakness, relevance and impact of the research work as well as the originality of the presentation.
  • Finally the extent of suitability or likelihood of the publication of manuscript needs to be mentioned. The editor can forward the review comments to the other potential reviewers also in addition to the authors. Reviewer should not cite the unpublished manuscript.

Ensuring conformation with the following points represent a standard review process:

  1. The title and content is within the scope of the journal.
  2. The information provided is relevant to the wide readership within the journal purview.
  3. All the sections within the manuscript such as title, abstract, key words, methods and conclusions are consistent with the objective of the paper. The controls included in the experimental work are rational and adequate.
  4. The writing is easy to comprehend without distractions and deviations.
  5. The methodology is clear and easy to be repeated by another researcher.
  6. The methodology has consent and ethical approvals as and when appropriate and applicable. The analytical and statistical methods are appropriate and relevant to the study. The findings and conclusions are adequately supported by the data.
  7. The information is not repeated either in text, tables or figure. The references adequately represent the data and interpretations are up to date without missing on key citable information.
  8. With regard to the length of the manuscript, the suggestions with precise comments can be made for either expanding, condensing, merging or deleting the content.

Reviewers’ role

Peer-review enhances the quality of the manuscript. Peer reviewers provide a valuable service to the publishers and authors in improving the literature in the specific discipline by volunteering their time, expert analysis and interpretations.

  • Evaluate the scientific merit of the article and provide unbiased assessment of the manuscript in a timely manner
  • Give their opinion on clarity, conciseness, relevance and significance of the manuscript
  • Expected to provide constructive and informative critique of the manuscript Suggest the ways of improving the content presentation, originality and scope
  • Ensuring that the methods are described with sufficient details with appropriate study design
  • Ensuring that the manuscript includes the citations of the relevant previous work Uphold confidentiality, impartiality, integrity and timeliness while reviewing the manuscript Should avoid personal comments or criticism
  • Estimating the manuscript rating and recommend whether to accept or to reject or suggest major revision or minor revision or to conclude with no recommendation.
  • Has to notify and cease review when there is the possibility of conflict of interest.