Reviewing is a time-intensive process – writing a review report can be almost as much work as writing a manuscript! – but it is very worthwhile for the reviewer as well as for the community.
Some use full guideline for Reviewers:
- Ensure the rigorous standards of the scientific process by taking part in the peer-review system.
- Uphold the integrity of the journal by identifying invalid research, and helping to maintain the quality of the journal.
- Fulfill a sense of obligation to the community and their own area of research.
- Establish relationships with reputable colleagues and their affiliated journals, and increase their opportunities to join an Editorial Board.
- Reciprocate professional courtesy, as authors and reviewers are often interchangeable roles – as reviewer, researchers ‘repay’ the same courtesy they receive as authors.
Some quick guidelines to our respected reviewers:
We would appreciate if you take note that whenever appropriate, papers are evaluated on the basis of the following seven criteria:
- a paper gives new ideas, derivations, applications that has been not studied before or little- or not in depth-studied. Review articles, case study, survey analysis can be
- Research question
- why the authors do this research and what is its importance and application. How it can benefit the society and outcomes is a new and innovative approach.
- Literature review
- Past trends to current status, to identify the research gap with recent references.
- Research methodology
- analytical, numerical or experimental or mixed. What is the contribution of the authors, assumptions and/or approximations used, description of apparatus and its limitations, steps of experiments, error analysis etc.
- Quality of results
- and the depth and logic of the discussion and justification and compared with other findings.
- conveyed and recommendations that might be used by others for future work and concrete conclusions.
- Quality of good and grammar English, used effectively to communicate the ideas and easy to understand with least or no grammatical error or types.
Please try not to focus on the editorial issues/mistakes as too many of them may lead to the author’s frustration. We want the authors, when they revise their paper, to focus on our comments/concern related to the seven above-mentioned criteria.