Don’t forget about the purpose of Peer Review
Thank you for the effort and expertise that you contribute to reviewing, without which it would be impossible to maintain the high standards of peer-reviewed journals.
Conduct the Review with utmost sincerity
Reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially, the article you have been asked to review should not be disclosed to a third party. If you wish to elicit an opinion from colleagues or students regarding the article you should let the editor know beforehand. Most editors welcome additional comments, but whoever else is involved will also need to keep the review process confidential. Although journal practices vary, most journals do not share the identity of the reviewer with the author. To help us protect your identity, please do not reveal your name within the text of your review. Be aware when you submit your review that any recommendations you make will contribute to the final decision made by the editor.
Depending upon the journal, you will be asked to evaluate the article on a number of criteria. Some journals provide detailed guidance others do not, but normally you would be expected to evaluate the article according to originality, structure, previous research and ethical issues.
Don’t miss the report submission deadline
Since the journal follows quick review process and shows respect to the editors eagerness, your timely submission of report is highly appreciated.
Communicate your report to the editor
Once you have completed your evaluation of the article the next step is to write up your report. The report should contain the key elements of your review, addressing the points outlined in the preceding section. Commentary should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including your name.
Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data.
When you make a recommendation regarding an article, it is worth considering the categories the editor most likely uses for classifying the article.
a) Reject (explain reason in report)
b) Accept without revision
c) Revise (either major or minor)
Last, clearly identify what revision is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article.
Information for Authors
Are you interested in submitting your paper to this journal? It is better if you review the aims and scope, submission policy and author guidelines carefully before submitting your paper. The author (s) should write directly to the executive editor for any query regarding the journal at email@example.com
Information for Librarians
The journal believes that it is librarian who can promote a journal better than anyone else. The journal encourages research librarians to list this journal among their library’s electronic journal holdings. As well, it may be worth noting that this journal’s open source publishing system is suitable for libraries to host for their faculty members to use with journals they are involved in editing. The librarians can easily collect the published papers from the archive menu of the journal’s website. However, subscription order for print copy should be given to the executive editor at firstname.lastname@example.org
Information for Readers
Readers are the heart of American Research Institute for Policy Development, American Association of International Researchers, & Journals. The INSTITUTE emphasizes the readers’ interest and easy access to the contents of the website as well as the published papers in IJRE journals. The journals’ contents are posted in the website based on open access policy that greatly benefits both the authors and readers. The readers can easily read and download the contents of published articles from the website. Even there is a specially designed ‘FAQ’ menu for the interested readers and contributors.
– Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
– Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. No self-knowledge of the author(s) must affect their comments and decision.
– Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments in 1000 to 2000 words.
– Reviewers may identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
– Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.