Information for reviewers
This journal uses double-blind review. Peer reviewers must login to our website to enter their peer review. For the first time, they will need to create new account. They should log in here and proceed by checking for an account or registering a new account.
Peer review is fundamental to thea scientific publication process and the dissemination of sound science. Peer reviewers are experts chosen by editors to provide written assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of written research, with the aim of improving the reporting of research and identifying the most appropriate and highest quality material for the journal. Reviews will be expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive.
The desired major elements of a high-quality review should be as follows:
- The reviewer should have identified and commented on major strengths and weaknesses of study design and methodology;
- The reviewer should comment accurately and constructively upon the quality of the author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations;
- The reviewer should comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study;
- The reviewer should comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of low standards of scientific conduct;
- The reviewer should provide the author with useful suggestions for improvement of the manuscript;
- The reviewer's comments to the author should be constructive and professional;
- The review should provide the editor the proper context and perspective to make a decision on acceptance (and/or revision) of the manuscript.
- The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication; reviewers must treat it as confidential. It should not be retained or copied. Also, reviewers must not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor.
- Reviewers and editors must not make any personal or professional use of the data, arguments, or interpretations (other than those directly involved in its peer review) prior to publication unless they have the authors' specific permission or are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the article.
- If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should notify the editor in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties unless officially notified by the journal that they may do so.
- Reviewers can download this highly-recommended editorial from Plos.org (Bourne PE, Korngreen A (2006) Ten Simple Rules for Reviewers. PLoS Comput Biol 2(9): e110).
Ten concise rules for reviewers are:
- Rule 1: Do Not Accept a Review Assignment unless You Can Accomplish the Task in the Requested Timeframe—Learn to Say No.
- Rule 2: Avoid Conflict of Interest.
- Rule 3: Write Reviews You Would Be Satisfied with as an Author.
- Rule 4: As a Reviewer You Are Part of the Authoring Process.
- Rule 5: Be Sure to Enjoy and to Learn from the Reviewing Process Rule 6: Develop a Method of Reviewing That Works for You.
- Rule 7: Spend Your Precious Time on Papers Worthy of a Good Review.
- Rule 8: Maintain the Anonymity of the Review Process if the Journal Requires It.
- Rule 9: Write Clearly, Succinctly, and in a Neutral Tone, but Be Decisive.
- Rule 10: Make Use of the “Comments to Editors”.
- Peer reviewers play an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record.
- The peer review process depends to a large extent on the trust and willing participation of the scholarly community and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically.
- Journals have an obligation to provide transparent policies for peer review, and reviewers have an obligation to conduct reviews in an ethical and accountable manner.
- Clear communication between the journal and the reviewers is essential to facilitate consistent, fair and timely review.
- Peer review, for the purposes of these guidelines, refers to reviews provided on manuscript submissions to journals, but can also include reviews for other platforms and apply to public commenting that can occur pre- or post-publication.
- Reviews of other materials such as preprints, grants, books, conference proceeding submissions, registered reports (preregistered protocols), or data will have a similar underlying ethical framework, but the process will vary depending on the source material and the type of review requested.
- The model of peer review will also influence elements of the process.
To review you have to register through following link: