Home /
Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

What is Peer Review ?

The genuineness of scientific text depends on effectual peer review. A published paper reflects not only on the authors of that paper, but also on the group of readers. It would be impossible to adjudge content credibility, without the judgment of knowledgeable peers as a standard for evaluating the quality of science.

Reviewers play a major role in Open Access publishing.The peer reviewer is responsible for critically reading and evaluating a manuscript in their specialty field, and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their submission. It is appropriate for the Peer Reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, ways to improve the strength and quality of the work, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.

Reviewers are essential to the scholarly publishing process. Academics rely on peer review to corroborate their research and add value to it through critical engagement, before publication.

Double-check the manuscript title page and the Acknowledgments section to verify whether there is any conflict of interest (with the authors, their institution, or their funding sources) and whether you can review the article impartially.

Guidelines to be followed while reviewing the articles are:

1. Reviewers should not be prejudiced or partial while reviewing the manuscript.

2. Reviewers should not disclose their identity to the authors, at any stage of the publication of the manuscript.

3. Reviewers should review the manuscript within the provided timeline in order to facilitate timely completion of the review process.

4. Reviewers should submit the acceptance letter once it is assigned to them.

5. Reviewer should directly inform the editor, if the manuscript does not meet the standards of the journal or there is no quality content in the manuscript.

6. Reviewers should directly contact the editor/editorial office, if there is any problem in the manuscript content/figures/tables/experimental data.

7. Articles are assigned based on the research interests of the reviewer. They can approach the assigned editor/editorial office, if the manuscript is beyond their expertise.

8. Reviewers have to remember that the final decision to accept or reject will depends on comments of the editor.

Once you’ve read the paper and have evaluated its quality, you need to make a recommendation to the editor regarding publication. The specific decision types used by a journal may vary but the key decisions are:

Accept – If the paper is acceptable for publication in its present form.

Minor revision – If the paper will be ready for publication after minor revisions. Kindly list the revisions you would recommend the author makes.

Major revision – If the paper would benefit from substantial changes such as expanded data analysis, widening of the literature review, or rewriting sections of the text.

Reject – If the paper is not appropriate for publication with this journal or if the revisions that would need to be undertaken are too fundamental for the submission to continue being considered in its present form.

In your comments anticipated for the author, do not make statements about the acceptability of a paper (see the next paragraph); suggested revisions should be stated as such and not expressed as conditions of acceptance. Organize your review so that an introductory paragraph summarizes the key findings of the article, gives your overall impression of the paper, and highlights the major deficiencies. This paragraph should be followed by specific, numbered comments, which, if appropriate, may be subdivided into major and minor points. (The numbering facilitates both the editor’s letter to the author and evaluation of the author’s rebuttal.) Criticism should be presented dispassionately; offensive remarks are not acceptable.

If you are asked to review a paper when you do not have adequate time to review or engaged in any other important works, you should make the editorial office aware that you are unavailable at the earliest possibilities. It is very helpful if you could recommend an alternative expert or someone whose opinion you trust.

If you are unable to complete your report on a paper in the agreed time-frame required by the journal, please inform the editorial office as soon as possible so that the refereeing procedure is not delayed.

Make the editors aware of any potential conflicts of interest that may affect the paper under review.

If you are interested to become the reviewer for our journals, kindly mail us CV along with journal of interest to info@scientonline.org. We will respond to you within 24-48 hours.