Editorial Policy
Peer Review
Peer review is a process where experts in a specific field evaluate a manuscript's quality before publication. Peers-researchers with similar expertise assess the work's originality, validity, and importance to ensure it meets academic standards. This evaluation helps editors decide whether to accept or reject the manuscript for publication.
How does it work?
When a manuscript is submitted to a journal, it first undergoes an initial assessment to ensure it meets the journal’s criteria. If it passes, the editorial team selects reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. These peer reviewers evaluate the manuscript, providing feedback and suggesting improvements. Their detailed recommendations help enhance the research quality, making it ready for potential publication.
Double blind peer review
In a double-blind peer review, both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. This process helps maintain the quality and integrity of the work by focusing solely on the manuscript’s content and merit, rather than the authors' reputations or backgrounds.
When asked you to review a manuscript, consider these points:
- Expertise Match: Ensure the manuscript aligns with your area of expertise. Only accept if you are well-qualified to evaluate the content.
- Availability: Assess if you have enough time to review the manuscript thoroughly, typically requiring 4-6 hours. Confirm you can meet the deadline or request an extension if needed.
- Conflicts of Interest: Disclose any potential conflicts that could influence your judgment. Full transparency helps the editor make an informed decision about your suitability for the review.
Conducting Review
When conducting a review, maintain confidentiality by not disclosing the manuscript to third parties or contacting the author directly. Your feedback will influence the editor's final decision, so evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:
- Title: Does it accurately reflect the main subject or hypothesis and is it complete?
- Abstract: Does it summarize and reflect the manuscript’s content effectively?
- Keywords: Do they represent the manuscript's focus?
- Background: Is the background, current status, and significance of the study adequately described?
- Methods: Are methods detailed, sound, and appropriate? Is the statistical analysis valid?
- Results: Are the research objectives met, and does the manuscript adhere to biostatistical requirements?
- Discussion: Is the interpretation of findings clear, logical, and relevant to the literature and clinical practice?
- Illustrations and Tables: Are they clear, well-labelled, and illustrative of the content?
- References: Are recent, relevant, and authoritative references cited appropriately?
- Quality of Manuscript Organization: Is the manuscript well-organized, concise, and grammatically correct?
- Ethics Statements: Are formal ethics documents provided and does the manuscript meet ethical standards?
Language
If the article contains grammatical errors that hinder understanding, inform the editor but do not correct the language yourself. Suggest minor revisions to the author if necessary.
Previous Research
Check if the article appropriately references previous work and identifies any significant omissions. Ensure references are accurate.
Ethical Issues
- Plagiarism: Report if the manuscript seems to copy substantial parts of other works or lacks proper citation. Request a plagiarism report if needed.
- Fraud: If you suspect data falsification or inaccuracies, discuss your concerns with the editor.
- Other Concerns: For medical research, verify that confidentiality is maintained and that ethical treatment of animal or human subjects is upheld.
Ethical Guidelines for peer reviewers
The journal adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Ethical Guidelines for peer reviewers. We ensure a fair, unbiased, and timely review process, with decisions based on the manuscript’s importance, originality, and clarity.
Join as a Reviewer
We invite you to join our team of journal reviewers, where you'll play a vital role in the publication process and gain valuable insights into scientific publishing. To become a reviewer, simply register through our CRI JOURNALS portal.
Key Points for Reviewers:
- Confidentiality: The manuscript is confidential. Do not share or contact the author directly.
- Evaluation Criteria: Assess the manuscript for originality, relevance, and adherence to journal standards. Consider whether the research is significant and if it contributes to the field.
- Comments: Provide clear, constructive feedback for both the editor and the author, indicating specific strengths and weaknesses.
- Determine the Appropriate Recommendation: Based on your evaluation, classify the manuscript into one of the following categories:
a. Publishable without revision: The manuscript is strong and ready for publication as is.
b. Publishable after minor revisions: The manuscript is solid but requires small adjustments or clarification.
c. Publishable only after major revisions: Significant changes are needed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
d. Reject: The manuscript does not meet the necessary standards and should not be published. - Offer Suggestions for Improvement (if applicable): If the manuscript requires revisions, provide specific, constructive suggestions for improvement. Clearly indicate which sections need changes and why.
- Communicate Your Recommendation to the Editor: Submit your recommendation and suggestions through the OJS Portal, ensuring that your feedback is clear and helpful for both the author and the editor.
Privacy Statement
The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.
