Information For Reviewers
The peer review procedure takes place to confirm academic work, helps to improve the quality of published research. The quality of the journal will be maintained through the rigorous review process. Reviewers should be nominated carefully taking into account their expertise, publication history and activity in the field. They should respect the ethical principles of the journal and be familiar with recommendations published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Reviewers should analyze manuscripts critically and objectively. They should revise carefully the entire content of the submitted article, and make sure that the submitted paper fulfills the standards set for publication. Their peer-review report should be critical, but also fair and kind, emphasizing both, sections of work that have been developed correctly and those that should be improved. The report should be also clear, justified, transparent, and complete – including both major and minor changes.
A reviewer should consider whether the submitted paper matches his/her area of expertise if there is any conflict of interest; an available time before accepting or declining of review invitation. After accepting an article for review, the reviewer(s) should keep all documents as confidential and should not be shared with anyone. Any information about the review process also should not be shared with others without the permission of the editors. The review process will be performed following the Author’s journal guideline.
The review comments are vital for editors to decide whether to accept or reject the submitted article. It also assists the author(s) to improve their submitted manuscript. Hence, the overall opinion and line by line comments of the article is crucial. The incorporated comments should be polite and constructive and should not include personal details including the reviewer’s name.
Delivering insight into any shortcomings is essential. Details should be provided to recommend editors and authors to know the rationale behind the comments of the reviewers. The recommendation can be either reject, accept, or revise. The revision may be either major or minor depending on the provided explanations by the reviewers.
