Peer review process is the base of good science and it is an obligation of a reviewer to spare some time for peer review for the sake of science and development. Effective peer review is key to the success, and the journal team work very hard to establish an environment for a reviewer for an effective review. Reviewers are requested to review the article, however they have right not to review the article without giving any reason. However, we expect that if the invited reviewer is not available due to any reason, he/she may propose two relevant reviewers for that manuscript. There are following features of a reviewing process:
Reviewers are provided with an assessment sheet to answer the questions related to manuscript quality; however, reviewers’ comments are must to consider it a complete review. Therefore, reviewers are requested to add at least few comments in the given comment box or add separate sheet for comments to author. It is suggested to categorize comments in three parts:
There is an option to provide confidential comments to editor as well, however not obligatory
Reviewers are encouraged to give comments for authors criticizing the methods, results and conclusions drawn. Finally, reviewers are asked to select the suitable category from the following:
However, it is important to note that the overall decision will be made by the subject editor. If any of the reviewer give answers of 6 questions as no, editor has right to reject the paper without giving any further reason.