• Research

    Explore Our areas of expertse

  • News

    Keep Up with What's Happening today

  • Events

    Join Us, help Make a Difference

Home » Policies & Procedures » Policies » Duties of Reviewers

Duties of Reviewers

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. A double blinded peer review process is followed. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. Reviewers can join in the review portal for the discussion of assigned articles. The reviewer form can be seen here.

Contribution to Editorial Decisions:

Articles will be published in the Journal after peer reviewing, under the “Blind Review” process. The reviewers advise the Editor-in-Chief/Editor in making the editorial decision. The Editor-in-Chief/Editor communicates with authors, as required, and helps them in improving quality of their research paper. The reviewers don’t know the author’s identity and Reviewers’ comments to the editors are confidential and before passing on to the author will be made anonymous. The names of the reviewers remain strictly confidential; with their identities known only to the Editor-in-Chief/Editor.

Promptness:

The journal Editor-in-Chief/Editor are committed to provide timely review to the authors and if any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor-in-Chief/Editor and excuse him/her from the review process.

Confidentiality:

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity:

The editors and reviewers are required to evaluate papers based on the content. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources:

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Editor-in-Chief/Editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:

Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Journal Database