Log in

Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

Reviewer Guidelines

1. Basic principles to be followed by peer reviewers

1.1.    Selection of Reviewers

Typically, manuscripts submitted will be reviewed by two independent reviewers selected by the editorial board.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of many factors, including expertise, prior publications and prior performance as reviewers (including quality and timeliness). Review invitations may contain confidential information that should be treated as such.

Authors are welcome to suggest potential reviewers, for the reviewer pool. However, the decision to allocate articles for review will be based on the profile of the reviewers and the thematic area of the article.

1.2.    Timeliness
Since we are committed to timely editorial decisions, reviewers are requested to respond promptly for the reviewer invitation. The reviewer report should be submitted online within 30 days of acceptance. If reviewers anticipate that the deadline cannot be met due to unavoidable circumstances, they are requested to inform the assigning editor two weeks before the deadline.

1.3.    Potential Conflicts of Interest
If the reviewer perceives that reviewing a particular manuscript may be subjected to a significant conflict of interest (financial or otherwise), he/she should seek clarification from the assigning editor or decline the invitation giving reasons.

1.4.    Aim of the review
The expectation of the review is to provide constructive comments and ideas to the author in view of improving the manuscript to the standard of a journal publication. Therefore, the reviewers are expected to spend an adequate time to read, review and report the manuscript. Nevertheless, the review decision should be arrived at considering the overall quality of the manuscript.
The content of the review report is described in section 1.2.1

1.5.    Editing Reviewers’ Reports
Review report items intended for the authors will be shared with the authors as a matter of policy. Hence, the reviewers are requested to use appropriate language. The editorial board reserves the right to edit  report content for language issues and to eliminate confidential information.

1.6.    Requests to follow-up reviews/ re-review

In circumstances mentioned below the reviewers will be requested to carry out follow-up reviews/ re-review.  

• Major disagreement between the authors and the review report where the editor/s cannot address the disagreement in the best of their technical scope: re-review request
• When the corrected, resubmitted manuscript version has a major difference from the original submission: follow-up review request
• When the authors specifically request reviewer response: follow-up review request
• Any other instance the editorial board decides to request for a follow-up review

However, if the quality of the revisions can be adequately assessed by the assigned editor/s without additional input, follow-up/re-review will not be requested.

1.7.    Confidentiality of the manuscript

Manuscripts are reviewed with due regard for the confidentiality of the content. All reviewers shall treat manuscripts and associated data in a strictly confidential manner, as a condition of their agreement to become a reviewer. Any evidence of breach may result in delisting from the reviewer pool.  

1.8.    Anonymity

The manuscript review process will be single-blind.

We strongly discourage reviewers from revealing their identities.  as they may be asked to comment on other reviewers ' criticisms and further revisions of the manuscript; in such circumstances, it may be harder for identified reviewers to be objective. We also strongly discourage authors from trying to determine the identities of reviewers or directly confront their reviewers. Our policy is not to confirm or deny speculation about the identity of reviewers and we encourage reviewers to adopt a similar policy.

 2.    Overall aspects to cover during your review:

• Make sure the article focuses on its stated goal/objectives.
• Keep in mind that reviewers serve as authors' mentors and help revisit an article until it is appropriate for publication. The process requires both complimentary and critical comments. The aim is to help authors identify the strengths and weaknesses of their manuscripts.
• Provide your overall response and a list of comments. What are the strong aspects of the article? What clarification or more detail is required? Is it written well?
• List the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Clearly state the manuscript's goals, contributions and limitations.
• Confirm the current, accurate and consistent information contained in the article.
• Verify that sufficient research and evidence has been provided to support the claims of the manuscript.
• It is recommended to cite quotes, give page numbers and refer directly to the specific areas of the paper you review.  Refer to the tables, figures and diagrams with numbers where necessary.
• Confirm that the manuscript is written according to the author guidelines. (Manuscript checklist – Please refer to the Author’s guidelines)
• Reviewer decision should be provided at the end of the review conforming to the overall judgement arrived at. This will be the single most important review decision to the editorial board.

 2.1.    When writing your comments Please follow the following questions:

 

2.1.1. Abstract 

• How well does the abstract give an overview of the manuscript?
• Does the abstract provide complete but concise information on all important components?
• How the abstract can be improved?

 

2.1.2.  Introduction 

• How well the context of the research problem stated?
• How clear is the research question?
• Does the introduction mention the importance of established research?
• How the introduction can be improved?
• Are the study objectives/aims clearly described?

 

2.1.3. Methods and Materials 

• Do the methods match with the objectives stated, based on current understanding?
• Does the manuscript provide enough evidence to justify the methods?
• Do the methods improve the power of the study? Is it explicitly mentioned?
• Has the manuscript contextualized the methods appropriately?
• Do the methods reflect novelty and innovation?
• How the methods presentation can be further improved? 

2.1.4. Results

• How appropriate the use of graphs, tables and figures?
• How the results presentation can be further improved? 

2.1.5. Discussion/ conclusions / recommendations 

• How well the discussion conforms to the results presented?
• The analytical power of the discussion i.e. compared with appropriate/current literature, driven by the data derived by the study
• Do the conclusions adequately confirm to the objectives of the study?
• Does the discussion explicitly mention the contribution this paper has made to the literature?
• Has the limitations of the study discussed in this section?
• Are the recommendations
• How can the discussion and the conclusion be improved? 

2.1.6. Your overview 

• What is the contribution of this paper to the scientific literature?
• How novel are the methods and findings?
• According to your general view, is the paper plagiarized or self- plagiarized?  
• What are the strengths of the paper? What have you liked most?
• Can you suggest ways to make the paper's English more readable for international readers?
• Grammar and spelling: is there a need for significant corrections?

2.1.7. Your decision:

How strongly do you recommend the publication of this paper (after revision) based on your evaluation above? Please select one of the following options when making a final recommendation on the manuscript.

Don't reject manuscripts, as you may disagree with the authors opinion. Judge the article about the topic's relevance and the author's case. 

• D1: Publication as is - The article meets all the above requirements and is ready to be published.
• D2: Minor Revision - The article contains a few errors that can be easily corrected, including grammar, missing references and minor clarification of content. No need of follow-up review.
• D3: Major revision - The article has significant shortcomings in content and language. The author's claims are not substantiated by facts or the information is too wide. The article does not meet the guidelines of the journal. However, the methods are appropriate or novel. It needs thorough follow-up revisions.
• D4: Reject & Resubmit- The article in its present form is not suitable for publication and requires more than 75 percent to be significantly rewritten. It does, however, contain value and, upon resubmission of the manuscript by the author, the re-review comments could be considered for an evaluation for future publication.
• D5: Not appropriate for publication - The article cannot be published. It offers readers no value or its subject is so thoroughly incoherent that it does not merit a resubmit/re-review opportunity.

 3.    Post-review expectations:

Peer reviewers should:

• Continue to maintain confidential information about the manuscript and its review.
• Respond promptly to questions relating to their review of a manuscript by the editorial board and provide the required information.
• Contact the journal if anything relevant is noted even after submitting the review, which may affect original feedback and recommendations.
• Read other reviewers' reviews, if provided by the journal, in order to improve their own understanding of the subject or the decision taken.
• Try to accommodate journal requests for follow-up reviews or re-reviews.

4.    Guide for the online review platform

 

Section Policies