Reviewer

Peer review is the principal mechanism through which the quality of research is judged. The number of scientific articles published each year continues to grow, the quality of the peer-review process and the editorial board are cited as primary influences on a journal’s reputation. Peer-reviewing is a time-intensive process. The prime object is to find discrepancies in the submitted papers. This journal ensures that all the articles published to follow the majority of the publication standards largely depends on the shoulders of a reviewer. This process of reviewing not only requires a lot of scientific knowledge about a certain subject but also demands a lot of commitment to devote a significant amount of time to deal with the process of reviewing. Reviewing the manuscripts to write a comprehensive and unbiased report is chiefly determined by the reviewer. At times, a reviewer has to distinguish the manuscripts so that any type of invalid research can be avoided for publishing. This is worthwhile for the scientific community and the authorship. Reviewers provide feedback on the paper, suggest improvements, and make a recommendation to the editor about whether to accept, reject, or request changes to the article. The ultimate decision always rests with the editor but reviewers play a significant role in determining the outcome. This journal publishes peer-reviewed articles depending heavily on the scientific referees who typically volunteer their time and expertise. In most circumstances, at least 2 reviewers are solicited to evaluate a manuscript and in any case of controversy or strong disagreement regarding the merits of the work, an additional review may also be solicited by the editor.

Criteria for Becoming a Reviewer

To register as a reviewer please email an up-to-date CV or resume and a completed reviewer application form to the relevant journal editorial office. Reviewers are selected for their expertise and experience. As a minimum, reviewers are selected on the basis of-

The one must be qualified to Ph.D. level (or equivalent) or above in a relevant subject.
The one must be currently active researcher.
Have five or more recent publications in peer-reviewed journals.

Roles and Responsibilities of a Reviewer

Submit the report of the author’s manuscript if there are some changes or enhancements required to the journal’s editorial board member and co-ordinator.
Their feedback should be unbiased and devoid of any conflict of interest.
Indicating whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant to the journal’s readers
Avoiding personal comments or criticism.
Maintaining the confidentiality of the review process i.e. not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper.
Facilitating the editor informing profound articles to the best of his capacity.
Timely notification to the editor.
Reporting immediately to the editor if there is a financial conflict of interest.
Notifying the editor immediately if unable to review the assigned manuscript in a timely manner and providing the names of potential other reviewers.
Refraining from direct author contact.
Identifying invalid research in order to maintain the quality of the journal.
Promoting the journal with reputable colleagues and establishing the relationship with their affiliated journals thus increasing their opportunities to join an Editorial Board.
Preventing ethical breaches by identifying plagiarism, research fraud, and other problems by dint of their familiarity with the subject area.
Work under review should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the review process. Reviewers should not retain copies of submitted manuscripts and should not use the knowledge of their content for one’s purpose.
Recuse themselves from accepting the invitation if the submitted manuscript is outside their research interests.
Decline the request to review if they have a substantial conflict of interest with any of the authors.
The Peer review comments must be transparent, unbiased, and should not involve personal or professional conflicts.
The comments must be relevant and supported to increase the quality of the manuscript.
To respect the intellectual independence of authors.
To notify the editor of any similarity between the submitted manuscript and another manuscript either published or under is considered by another journal.
To alert the editor if a manuscript contains or appears to contain plagiarized material, falsified or manipulated data.
Not to retain or copy the submitted manuscript in any form; to comply with data protection regulations, as appropriate.
Never communicate directly with an author. Any additional files which are provided with the reviewer’s comments should be anonymized by the reviewer.
Inform the editor if the manuscript has concerns about the level of scientific rigor, lacks sufficient novelty, suspect fragmentation of a substantial body of work into several short publications, contains personal criticism of others, and has ethical concerns such as plagiarism or regarding approval for human or animal experimentation.

Reviewer Recommendations

Along with your comments on the review and answers to the editor’s questions, the report should contain a recommendation to the editor. Your options may include:

Accept- The manuscript would be suitable for publication in its current form.
Minor/Major revisions-The manuscript could be suitable for publication after the author(s) have responded to the reviewer’s comments and made changes where appropriate.
Reject-The manuscript is not suitable and it should not be considered further.

Appeal Process

When a paper is recommended for rejection, the editor will notify the authors. Authors have the right to appeal to the editor if they feel the decision to reject is unfair. In such cases, the editor will request a letter by the authors detailing the reason for the appeal, as well as a full response to the reviewers’ reports. The manuscript will then be sent to EIC for a final opinion on the manuscript.