Peer review is the fundamental aspect of a scientific publication. It helps Editor to make a clear decision about the article and assists author to improve the quality of manuscript. Before accepting an article for review, reviews must ascertain that either article belongs to their commanding area. They are able to offer an appropriate time for critical review. The journals of Science World Publication believe in the Blind peer review policy.
- Conflict of Interest
Its prime responsibility of a reviewer to restrain himself from peer-reviewing process if he finds any conflict of interest. Conflict of Interest (COI) exists where there is difference of opinion between an individual's personal interest and his/her responsibility towards scientific inventions or publications.
Its ethical responsibility of a reviewer to keep confidential all the material provided for critical review and don't use them for his/her own personal interest. It's obligatory to make sure that information is not shared during processing or after reviewing process, with any irrelevant person.
The definition of plagiarism is very broad. Plagiarism is a drill of coping someone else's work or idea and present this as his/her own work. Science World Publication journal's strongly discourage this practice. It is considered unethical for a reviewer restore the information during peer-review and uses them for his/her personal, institution's interest.
Reviews should be honest and unbiased in his opinion, and should believe on objective reviewing process. Reviewers should not be judgmental about:
- The source of the article
- Race, Gender, ethnicity or populace of the author
- Political, religious or cultural approach of the author
- Reviewing Fundamentals
A reviewer should concentrate on the following aspects of a manuscript during objective evaluation.
- Originality of research
- Technical aspects
- Innovative approach
- Clarity in writing a manuscript
- Result oriented and contribution to society
- Timely review
Reviewers should accept only the manuscripts that they think they can critically review in appropriate time and should return manuscript in timely manner.
Reviewers' should fill the recommendation form and mention the correct status:
- Requires minor corrections
- Requires moderate revision
- Requires major revision
- Not suitable for the journal. Submit to another publication such as (suggest a journal)
Recommendation should have constructive arguments and facts based on the content of the manuscript.Become Reviewer
Reviewers should follow the ethical policies of journal and make sure author has followed the guideline, editorial policies and publication ethics. Author has submitted article in the right journal and prepared according to guidelines. In case reviewer, observe that article not suitable for the said journal, refer in the most relevant one.
Reviewer is responsible to ensure the report is precise, constructive and unambiguous. Reviewers should avoid using "inimical, deprecating and snappish comments". If reviewer find any discrepancy, comment for correction suggest the improvements where necessary.