Peer Review Process
Responsibility of the Reviewers
Although the originality of the manuscripts is checked by the editorial team using turnitin software, the reviewers are requested to report any cases of non-original content in the manuscripts they review. Also, the reviewers are requested to read the sections on the submission Guidelines and Journal Policy to ensure the authors have considered the required obligations to author their manuscripts. This can result in a more critical and effective evaluation by the reviewers. Briefly explained, the reviewers are requested to:
provide criticism as support:
I am interested in seeing more variety in your manuscript. (Criticism as support)
The topic was not interesting. (Criticism as attack)
I believe you can improve the quality of your paper by editing it. (Criticism as support)
You have not spent adequate time for this article. (Criticism as attack)
- Stress the positive: The reviewers should mention the positive aspects of the manuscript in their report prior to discussing the shortcomings.
- Be Specific: the reviewers are requested to avoid making general notes such as "the paper was interesting" and clearly highlight each and every point in the manuscript.
- Avoid Biases: The reviewers are requested to be objective and avoid judging from the view point of a detached critic.
- Be constructive: The reviewers should provide the authors with insight to enhance their work, even if they manuscript is rejected.
More information about effective review can be obtained from DeVito (2012, pp. 373-4).
Joseph DeVito (2012) Human Communication:
The Basic Course Editorial Responsibilities Editors make the final decision on whether or not a manuscript can be accepted for publication. This decision will be made without any conflicts of interest and is based on certain criteria and mentioned in the Authors guideline. This decision is objective and confidential.