|
Peer Review Process: At least two lead scientists in the field of their respective specialities will be selected from reviewer databases to serve as journal peer reviewers. Randomly select reviewers in the study area of interest, next correct revision by specialized editors, and lastly format and grammatical checks by the managing editor and EJAR software. Finally, the chief editor of the journal will approve the reviewers' and specific editors' recommendations for publishing. Editors are in charge of ensuring that the peer-reviewed editorial process is fair, timely, comprehensive, and respectful. The Editor's timely recommendations to the various journals for addressing relevant and noteworthy topics are critical to the journal's success. The writers should make certain that their works are unique, and that any work or words copied from others be properly cited or quoted. Peer review process The purpose of peer review is to guarantee that journals publish high-quality research that will benefit the whole scientific community. Peer review may be daunting for authors because it might result in their papers being rejected. Remember that edits and improvements are a normal part of the publishing process and may help your book increase in quality. Peer review is an important element of scientific publication since it ensures that the science presented is accurate. Peer reviewers are professionals who give their time to assist improve journal papers by providing free advice to authors. In scholarly publications, reviewers play a critical role. Peer review is important because it (1) validates academic work, (2) helps to enhance the quality of published research, and (3) expands networking opportunities within research groups. There are several forms of peer review. Each system has its own set of benefits and drawbacks. Our journal prefers double-blind peer review. Both the reviewer and the author are anonymous under this system. (1) Author anonymity reduces reviewer prejudice, such as based on an author's gender, place of origin, academic position, or past publishing history. (2) Articles by prominent or well-known writers are evaluated based on the substance of their articles, not on their reputation. Reviewers Responsibilities a. Confidentiality: Without prior permission from the Editor, reviewers should not disclose any information from an assigned manuscript with outsiders, nor should they save the data from an assigned paper. b. Competence: The review should be completed by a reviewer with a reasonable level of competence. An Assigned Reviewer with insufficient competence should feel guilty and refuse the review since it is assumed that the reviewer is a specialist in the subject. c. Constructive assessment: Reviewer comments should highlight positive elements of the work, constructively criticize problematic aspects, and indicate where improvements are required. A reviewer should explain and defend his or her decision in such a way that Editors and Authors can comprehend the reasoning behind the remarks. The reviewer should verify that any previously reported observation or argument is supported by an appropriate citation and should promptly notify the Editor if he or she becomes aware of duplicate publication. When commenting on an article, a reviewer should not use any harsh language. The designated reviewer should evaluate each article objectively and without bias or personal interest. d. Impartiality and Integrity: The judgment of the reviewer should be based purely on scientific merit, relevance to the issue, and scope of the publication, rather than the authors' financial, racial, ethnic, or other backgrounds. e. Disclosure of conflict of interest: To the greatest degree possible, the reviewer should try to keep the conflict of interest to a minimum. In such a case, the reviewer should contact the editor and explain the conflict of interest. f. Timeliness and responsiveness: Reviewers should be ethically obligated to offer review comments within the time frame specified and be active in responding to any questions asked by the editor. Editor, Editorial Board Responsibilities Editors must ensure the integrity of the published literature by posting errata or corrections indicating anything of relevance, retractions, and statements of concern as soon as feasible. The editor must follow the publisher's policy guidelines and carry out the obligations put upon him or her with honesty. The editorial office initially reviewed all submitted manuscripts. Manuscripts may be rejected without peer review at this stage if it is determined that they are not related to the journal's scope or do not meet manuscript formatting criteria. This rapid rejection procedure ensures that writers get a decision quickly and do not have to wait for the review process. Manuscripts that pass preliminary review will be submitted to the relevant section editor. The section editor may recommend rejection based on a fatal design fault, inappropriate replications, a lack of innovation, or other significant issues. If necessary, the manuscript will be sent out for peer review, often to two separate reviewers who will give feedback. At this stage, the section editor may suggest rejection or acceptance, following which the manuscript and reviewer comments are forwarded to the editor-in-chief for a final decision to the authors. The paper will be returned to the corresponding author for modification by the reviewers' recommendations. Authors have 4 weeks to finish the rewrite, which must be returned to the section editor. If the paper is not returned within 4 weeks, the author will be barred from resubmitting the modification. Rejected manuscripts can only be resubmitted with the permission of the section editor or editor-in-chief. Rejected papers that have been revised are regarded as new submissions. *For more details open, EJAR Review Process Flowchart: |
Top