- We make certain that the peer-review procedure is impartial, timely, and fair (using a single blind review technique, in which the author is not aware of the reviewer but the reviewer is aware of the author).
- We sincerely thank each and every one of our reviewers for their ongoing assistance, time, and effort in assessing the articles. The preliminary manuscript submission is transformed into a citable standard publication through the peer-review procedure. It enhances the quality of the presentation and scientific worth for a wider audience to better understand.
- Author recommendations and bibliographical expertise are used to identify potential and active reviewers.
- The reviewers' assessments and remarks are very important when making the final judgment on the manuscript after consulting with the editors and taking into account a number of
- The final choice about the article is made after consulting with the editors and taking into account a number of contributing criteria, including the significance and impact of the research effort, and the reviewers' assessments and suggestions are very important. We follow the COPE rules for this. If a reviewer discovers a conflict of interest in the document, they may choose not to comment.
- It is recommended that reviewers communicate with the assigning editor. While suggestions and critical assessments about the manuscript's substance should be sent to both the editor and the author, sensitive problems including conflicts of interest, plagiarism, and published data should be sent to the assigning editor.
- Because the unpublished manuscripts are classified, the assessment and recommendation process is confidential. The review must be highly objective and primarily concentrate on enhancing the manuscript's scientific worth.
- It is definitely forbidden to make personal attacks in the review comments. The review remarks ought to be sufficiently explicit and backed up by references. Please mention the research work's advantages, disadvantages, significance, and influence in addition to the presentation's uniqueness.
- Lastly, the degree of appropriateness or the possibility of the manuscript being published must be discussed. In addition to the authors, the editor has the option to transmit the review comments to additional possible reviewers. The unpublished manuscript should not be cited by the reviewer.
A typical review procedure is to ensure conforming with the following points:
- Both the title and the content are appropriate for the journal.
- The material offered is pertinent to the large readership that falls under the journal's scope.
- Every element of the document, including the title, abstract, keywords, techniques, and conclusions, aligns with the paper's goal.
- The experimental work's controls are reasonable and sufficient.
- With no deviations or distractions, the prose is simple to understand.
- The methodology is straightforward and simple for another researcher to replicate.
- Consent and ethical approvals have been obtained for the approach when suitable and applicable. The statistical and analytical techniques are suitable and pertinent to the research. The data provides sufficient support for the conclusions and findings.
- There is no repetition of the content in the text, tables, or figures. The data is accurately represented by the sources, and the interpretations are current without omitting any important citable details.
- Regarding the manuscript's length, specific comments can be included along with ideas for material expansion, condensing, merging, or deletion.
Reviewers role
- Peer review improves the manuscript's quality. By giving freely of their time, professional expertise, and interpretations, peer reviewers help publishers and authors improve the literature in their field.
- Analyze the article's scientific quality and promptly offer an objective evaluation of the text.
- Share their thoughts on the manuscript's significance, relevancy, clarity, and conciseness.
- Expected to offer insightful and helpful criticism of the manuscript. Provide suggestions for enhancing the scope, uniqueness, and presentation of the content.
- Making certain that the techniques are adequately detailed and that the study design is suitable
- Making certain that the text contains references to pertinent prior research Maintain punctuality, impartiality, integrity, and confidentiality when evaluating the manuscript. should refrain from making disparaging or personal remarks.
- Calculating the manuscript's grade and making recommendations about whether to accept or reject it, make significant or small changes, or terminate without making any recommendations
When a conflict of interest may arise, notification must be given and the review must be stopped.