Reviewer Instructions
Peer review
What is Peer Review?
Peer review is the process by which a group of individuals (peers) with similar skill levels and competencies evaluate each other's work. It is the system used to evaluate a manuscript's quality before publication.
How does it work?
Once a manuscript is submitted to a journal, it is assessed to determine if it meets the criteria for submission. It involves checking of manuscript as per the Journal’s guidelines, and if it does, the editorial team will select the manuscript for the peer-review process. Later, it is assigned to potential peer reviewers within the same expertise to review the manuscript, and appropriate recommendations and modifications must be suggested. The valuable feedback from reviewers helps in fostering the quality of research and thus makes it suitable for publication.
Double blind peer review
The journal follows double blind peer review; reviewers and authors are both anonymous to each other. The double-blind peer review process aims to ensure that research papers are evaluated based on their content and merit rather than the reputation or background of the authors.
On being asked to review, please consider the following points:
Does the manuscript you are being asked to review truly match your expertise? From the article information, initially check whether the article falls under your expertise or not. An invitation can only be accepted if Reviewer is competent to review the article and has expertise in the field.
Do you have time to review the manuscript? Reviewing a manuscript can be quite time-consuming. The time taken to review can vary from field to field, but a manuscript will take, on average, 4-6 hours to review properly. Will you have sufficient time before the deadline stipulated in the invitation to conduct a thorough review? In case you are unable to conduct the review, let the managing editor/editorial assistant know immediately if possible, and you have the option to choose the time frame, so choose as per your availability.
Are there any potential conflicts of interest? A conflict of interest will not necessarily eliminate you from reviewing a manuscript, but full disclosure to the editor will allow them to make an informed decision. These should all be listed when responding to the editor’s invitation for review.
Conducting review
Reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially; the manuscript you have been asked to review should not be disclosed to a third party. You should not attempt to contact the author.
While submitting your review, be aware, any recommendations you make will contribute to the final decision made by the editor.
Evaluate the manuscript according to the following:
Peer Review Checklist
S. No | Particulars | Details Description |
1. | Title | Does the title reflect the main hypothesis of the manuscript? Is the title complete? |
2. | Abstract | Does the abstract summarize and reflect the work described in the manuscript? |
3. | Keywords | Do the keywords reflect the focus of the manuscript? |
4. | Background/Introduction | Does the manuscript adequately describe the background, present status, and significance of the study? Does it describe what the author assumed to achieve accurately and clearly state the problem being investigated? It should summarize relevant research to provide context and explain what findings of others, if any, are being challenged or extended. |
5. | Methods | Does the manuscript describe methods (e.g., experiments, data analysis, surveys, etc.) in adequate detail? Is statistical analysis appropriate? Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the manuscript identify the procedures followed? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded? The authors of the paper should provide enough information about the usage of AI technology in the methods section to allow for replication of the methodology, mentioning the version, tool, and any pertinent prompts. |
6. | Results | Are the research objectives achieved by the experiments used in this study? It should be laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, advise the editor when you submit your report. Do the figures and tables inform the reader? Do the Illustrations describe the data accurately? Are they consistent, e.g., bars in charts are the same width, the scales on the axis are logical? |
7. | Discussion | Does the manuscript interpret the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points concisely, clearly, and logically? Are the findings and their applicability /relevance to the literature stated in a clear and definite manner? Is the discussion accurate, and does it discuss the paper’s scientific significance and/or relevance to clinical practice sufficiently?
|
| 8. | Conclusion | Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward? |
9. | Illustrations and tables | Are the figures, diagrams, and tables sufficient, good quality, and appropriately illustrative of the paper contents? Do figures require labeling with arrows, asterisks, etc., and better legends? |
10. | References | Does the manuscript cite appropriately the latest, important, and authoritative references in the introduction and discussion sections? It is unacceptable to cite AI-generated content as the main source. |
11. | Quality of manuscript organization and presentation | Is the manuscript well, concisely, and coherently organized and presented? Is the style, language, and grammar accurate and appropriate? |
12. | Research methods and reporting | Is the article of interest to members of the education research community? |
Language
In case an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, making it difficult to understand, you do not need to correct the English. You may wish to bring it to the attention of the editors and also give a minor revision to the author.
Previous research
If the article builds upon previous research, does it reference that work appropriately? Are there any important works that have been omitted? Are the references accurate?
Ethical Issues
Plagiarism: If you believe a manuscript is a significant copy of another work or if it is presented without providing as thorough a citation as feasible, then notify the editor. You can also request a plagiarism report for the paper.
Fraud: Although it can be challenging to identify a motivated fraudster, you should speak with the editor if you believe that the data in a manuscript are not accurate.
Other ethical concerns: Has confidentiality been maintained in medical research? It is also important to identify any instances in which the established standards for the ethical treatment of human subjects have been broken.
Some less important considerations for a reviewer have been mentioned:
- Minor Spellings: It can be ignored, as in copyediting, it will be checked again before publishing.
- Grammar Issues: Minor grammatical errors can be ignored, and the focus should be more on scientific parameters.
Reference Style: One should not focus more on reference style; as, it will also be checked before publishing as per the Journal format while copyediting.
Ethical Guidelines for peer reviewers
The journal follows the ethical guidelines as mentioned by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines has published Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. We ensure that peer review is fair, unbiased, and timely. Discussion to accept or reject a manuscript for publication is based on the manuscript’s importance, originality, and clarity.
Originality/ Evaluate the manuscript according to the following:
Is the manuscript sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the manuscript adhere to the journal’s standards? In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might be helpful to think of the research in terms of the standards or quality.
This is to check if there are any reviews of the area. If the research has been covered previously, pass on references to those works to the editor.
Join as a reviewer
Review of manuscripts is essential to the publication process, and you will learn a lot about scientific publishing by serving as a reviewer. We cordially invite you to join our team of journal reviewers. You can simply join as a reviewer through MPRP (Manuscript Peer Review Process). First-time user needs to register first, after email verification, can join as a reviewer by completing the profile with all required details.
Comments for the editor
Once the evaluation of the manuscript is completed, the next step is to write up a report. In case it seems that to might miss the deadline, notify the editor.
- Download the manuscript in Word format from the link provided at the manuscript submission portal, once logged in as a Reviewer.
- Provide your report online by checking various boxes, entering comments in ‘Comments for editor’ and ‘Comments for authors’. Provide a quick summary of the manuscript in ‘Comments to the editor’. It serves the dual purpose of reminding the editor of the details of the report and also reassuring the author and editor that you understood the manuscript. You may make changes/corrections in the Word document of the manuscript and send it to the editor by using the browse file button.
- The report should contain the key elements of your review, addressing the points outlined in the preceding section (preferably identifying page and line number). Comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details, including your name.
- Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are better able to understand the basis of the comments.
- While making a recommendation regarding a manuscript, it is worth considering the categories an editor will likely use for classifying the article.
- Publishable without revision (No Revision)
- Publishable after a few revision (Minor Revision)
- Publishable only after applying my corrections
- HUGE Revision must be done (Major revision)
- REJECT
In cases of 2 to 4, identify what revision is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be reviewing the revised article.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidelines
Peer reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the quality and credibility of research. Thus, it is essential to approach this responsibility with transparency and care. More details about AI Guidelines are available here.
How to submit review report
The review report can be directly submitted to the editor/editorial office through the MPRP Portal. The following things should be considered before submitting the review comments:
- Comments should be understandable for the author and the Journal Editors also.
- Always check the checklist and keep in mind does the paper is justifying all questions or not?
- Must mention strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript in a polite and well-organized manner.
- It should be clear and concise, and you must check the clarity of comments before submitting.
Article peer review process
The peer review process can be broadly summarized into various steps, although these steps can vary slightly between journals, as mentioned in the diagram below.
Editors Feedback: “Reviewers should remember that they are representing the readers of the journal. Will the readers of this particular journal find this informative and useful?”
- Submission of Manuscript: The corresponding or submitting author submits the manuscript to the journal via the manuscript submission portal or, in a few exceptional cases journal may accept submission by email.
- Editorial office scrutiny: The journal checks the manuscript composition and arrangement as per the journal's author guidelines to ensure it includes the required sections and style.
- Initial evaluation by Editors: The Editor checks that the manuscript is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. In case, suitable and significant for the journal, assigned to reviewers and if it is not, the manuscript may be revised and will be considered for resubmission after modifications.
- Invitation to Reviewers: The concerned editor assigns to appropriate reviewers with the same expertise to review the manuscript. As comments are received, further invitations are issued, if required, until the required number of acceptances is obtained – usually this is the second.
- Response to Invitations: Potential reviewers consider the invitation as per their expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They accept or decline accordingly. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.
- Review is conducted: The reviewer schedules many readings of the work. On the first reading, an initial impression of the work is made. If significant issues are discovered at this point, the reviewer may feel free to reject the article without further effort after providing potential justifications and explanations; if not, they will read the document multiple times and take notes in order to compile a thorough, point-by-point analysis. Following submission, the review is either recommended for acceptance or rejection by the journal, or it may be re-examined with a request for correction or highlighting, whether major or minor.
- Recognition to reviewer’s work: After reviewing a manuscript, the reviewer receives a thank-you email from MPRP (Editorial Office) on the journal peer-review process. Reviewers may send their thank mail with Web of Science to receive verified recognition for their work by forwarding their “thank you contribution” mail to reviews@webofscience.com to add their review record to their WOS account. The certificate of reviewing can also be obtained simply from the MRRP Reviewers panel after the final decision on the paper.
- Editor evaluates the reviews: The editor considers all the review comments before making a final decision. If the review differs significantly, the editor may invite an additional reviewer to obtain an extra opinion before making a decision, or suggest revisions and modifications.
- Decision is communicated: The editor sends a decision email to the author, including any relevant reviewer comments.
- Acceptance confirmation: Once accepted, the manuscript is sent to production. In case the manuscript is rejected, the author should be informed with a proper justification of the rejection. Or in some instances, the handling editor includes constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article and suggest resubmission to make the whole process again with new reviewers. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter to inform them of the outcome of their review. However, where only minor changes are requested, this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.
- Post Acceptance: Once the manuscript is accepted, it is moved to the production stage, where copyediting, proofreading, and quality checks are done to make the article suitable for publishing, and a Galley proof is also shared with the author to avoid any mistakes in the final version (Print + Online) of the manuscript. Upon completion of all steps, as per the decision of the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, the article is published online and in a print version as well.