Open Access

Gold

Open Hours

Mon-Fri(09:00-18:00 hrs)

For Reviewers

Peer reviews are conducted as a double-blind process via our Open Journal System (OJS). As an editor’s and/or reviewer’s comments will determine the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts, these comments play an important role in the peer-review process.

Reviews should be conducted in a fair and objective manner. Remarks and suggestions should not contain insults or criticism directed at the author as opposed to the manuscript.

The peer review should not be seen as an opportunity to appropriate the author’s ideas or data.

Conflicts of interest

We follow Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers by COPE.  Reviewers should:

-Ensure you declare all potential competing, or conflicting, interests. If you are unsure about a potential competing interest that may prevent you from reviewing, do raise this.
-Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious in nature.
-If you are currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors or have been recent (eg, within the past 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders, you should not agree to review.
In addition, you should not agree to review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review, or agree to review a manuscript that is very similar to one you have in preparation or under consideration at another journal.

How to peer review for the journal?  Reviewers are advised to adhere to the following:

  Reviewed articles and their contents should be kept strictly confidential.

  Reviews should be objective and constructive, personal criticisms are to be avoided, the feedback provided by your review will help the authors improve their manuscript.

  Promptness in response: Reviewers should inform the journal if you are unable to take part in the peer review of a particular manuscript. If you feel qualified to judge a particular manuscript and are able to submit your comments before the deadline given by the journal, please click Agree to Review on the system and be sure to inform the journal promptly if your circumstances change and you cannot fulfil your original agreement or if you require an extension. 

 Refrain from suggesting that authors include citations to your (or an associate’s) work merely to increase citation counts or to enhance the visibility of your or your associate’s work; suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons.
 Do not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of your review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or author.

 If a submission contains supplementary materials, the reviewers are also required to evaluate them at the same level as the content of the main manuscript.

  Possible areas of focus while conducting the review of manuscripts:

      Potential ethical concerns

          Potential research misconduct (eg. Data fabrication/manipulation)

          Potential author misconduct (eg. Plagiarism, redundant publication)

          Necessary ethical approval and/or consent, and is the research ethical?

      Does the manuscript fit within the stated scope of the journal?

      Are there novel methods?

      Are the data valid?

      Are the conclusions sound?

      Technical errors

      Logical errors (fallacies, lapses in logic, etc.)

      Language errors that mar the clarity of the text

      References

          Suitability of references used

          Other relevant research which should be referenced in the paper

          Uncited content