•       
  •  Add to Favorite 
  •  Add to Home 
  •  Really Simple Syndication 
  •       

 Reviewer
 

 Guidelines for Reviewers

 Before Reviewing:

Please consider the following:

• Does the article you have being asked to review match your expertise? If you receive a manuscript that covers a topic that does not sufficiently match your area of expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible.

• Do you have time to review the paper? The review of an article should be completed within two weeks. If you do not think you can complete the review within this time frame, please let the editor know and if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer. If you have agreed to review a paper but will no longer be able to finish the work before the deadline, please contact the editor as soon as possible.

• Are there any potential conflicts of interests? While conflicts of interest will not disqualify you from reviewing the manuscript, it is important to disclose all conflicts of interest to the editors before reviewing. If you have any question about potential conflicts of interests, please do not hesitate to contact editorial office.

• Reviews should be conducted fairly and objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. .

• If your previous or present connection with the author(s) or an author's institution might be construed as creating a conflict of interest, but no actual conflict exists, please include this issue in your confidential comments to the editor. If in doubt, please contact the editor who requested the review.

• Respect the confidentiality of the manuscript, which is sent to you in confidence. You should not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in your own work. If you feel a colleague is more qualified than you to review the paper, do not pass the manuscript to that person without requesting permission to do so from the editor. Your review and your recommendation should also be considered confidential.

• If you choose to remain anonymous, ensure that you avoid comments to the authors that might serve as clues to your identity.

The Review:-

When reviewing the article, please keep the following in mind:

• Content quality and originality: Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does the article adhere to the journal's standards?

• Organization and clarity –

Title: Does it clearly describe the article?

Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?

Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated?

Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors' findings, if any, are being challenged or extended.

Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?

Results: This is where the author/s should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section. 

Discussion/ Conclusion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?

Tables, Figures, Images: Are they appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand?

-When results are stated in the text of the paper, are they supported by data? Can you verify them easily by examining tables and figures? Are any of the results counterintuitive?

-Are all tables and figures necessary, clearly labelled, well designed, and readily interpretable? Is information in the tables and figures redundant? Is it repeated in the text?

- Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the cited references most appropriate to support the manuscript? Are citations provided for all assertions of fact not supported by the data in this paper? Are any key citations missing?

-Consider the length of the manuscript, relative to the content. Should any portions of the paper should be expanded, condensed, combined, or deleted? (Please be specific in your advice, and don't simply advise overall shortening by x%).

- Does the manuscript comply with the Instructions for Authors? Please also comment on any possible research or publication misconduct, such as: - Does this manuscript report data or conclusions already published or in press? If so, please provide details.

• Has the author plagiarised another publication?

-Is there any indication that the data have been fabricated or inappropriately manipulated?

-Have the authors declared all relevant competing interests. Is the research ethical and have the appropriate approvals/consent been obtained?

-Scope - Is the article in line with the aims and scope of the journal?

Share |