Instructions for the Reviewers
The contributions the reviewers are essential input for producing quality papers and books . We seek the services of both first time or experienced reviewers. Review report is essential for the authors to enhance and produce high quality paper.
Reward for the Reviewers
We reward the reviewers in terms of free access to our published materials, reduced submission fees for publishing papers in our journals or partner’s journals, 10% discount for participating in our co-sponsored international conferences and editing our book and journals as Guest Editor or joining the editorial board of our journals.
Duties and Responsibilities of the Reviewers
A reviewer must take note of the following issues:
Compliance to deadline
Reviewers are requested to return the review report within the deadline given by us. This timeline is related to the publication schedule and before committing to review work, please consider your ongoing and future engagements.
Conflict of Interest
The manuscript is anonymously reviewed to provide comments without any bias. Please return the paper without review. Reviewers are not allowed to review a paper co-authored by them.
Relation with the Editor
Reviewers should have collegial relation with the editor. The reviewers can discuss any issue with the editor about the acceptance of the paper.
Reviewers’ Engagement and Commitment
Reviewers are required to read the paper thoroughly (do not just skimit briefly or read partially), to check whether the paper contains
- Originality (check with Google Scholar or other sources)
- Timeliness and relevance
- Consistency and flow of arguments
- Scholarship and demonstrated evidence of robustness of research
- New contribution
- Correctness and excellence of language (such as grammar and quality)
Review Template
All reviewers to read the paper thoroughly and carefully and then complete the attached template . The comments should be clearly written without any ambiguity.
| Title | Yes | No | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| About Abstract | |||
| Is the significance of the study clear? | |||
| Does the abstract contain clear statement of purpose? | |||
| Has the author stated main conclusion? | |||
| 1. The Introduction | |||
| Problem statement or research question provided | |||
| Motivation or reasons behind the study provided | |||
| Provided a statement explaining that the research findings are different from previous studies | |||
| Significance or contribution of the author is clearly mentioned | |||
| 2. Literature Review | |||
| Has the author mentioned influential papers and adequate and relevant past studies (preferably after 2000)? | |||
| Has the author provided a statement describing how research question or problem statement was not answered by the past studies or has the author pointed out the absence or existence of the research topic in the literature? | |||
| Have the author mentioned the limitations or problems of past studies? | |||
| 3. Methodology | |||
| Are the methods explained in detail and have the author described all selection criteria in Methods? | |||
| Data or study period is for considerable period and justification for data are provided | |||
| Model is appropriate, timely and well constructed/placed and relevant (if applicable) | |||
| Justifications for sample size, the model used or research method followed (in case of qualitative studies) are provided | |||
| Provided a statement describing how the author(s) have improved the previous study or model or theory | |||
| 4. Results / Analysis | |||
| Main findings / Results / findings are well knitted, explained and convincing and organized in logical sequence | |||
| Has the author mentioned how the results differ from other authors/studies and/or are the answer to the study/research question provided? | |||
| Results are new and contributes to body of knowledge | |||
| 5. Conclusion | |||
| Do the results support or contradict previous theories or findings? | |||
| Does the conclusion explain how the research has created knowledge or at least moved the body of knowledge forward? | |||
| Did the author provide limitation? | |||
| 5. General Overview | |||
| Does the paper tally with the aims and objectives of the journal? | |||
| Originality is demonstrated and no part of the paper is published elsewhere. (You can check with Google/yahoo etc.) | |||
| Flow of arguments (which is logically constructed) is present | |||
| Is the paper free from grammatical errors or complex sentences or suffer from lack of clarity | |||
| Additional Comments | |||