Reviewer Guidelines

Peer review is the standard process for checking the aspect of quality, efficacy, and applicability of scholarly analysis. The process aims to guide authors for effective assessment of their work by experts in the respective field to enhance their work. All manuscripts submitted to the journal were evaluated based on scientific quality and efficacy. Suggestions and critiques by reviewers to improve the quality assessment play a crucial role while editors’ judgment regarding the suitability of the paper for publication in respective journals.

Step-by-Step Guideline:

  1. Inscienz proceeds for double-blind peer review process, of which none of the reviewer and author details will be disclosed to each other throughout the review process.
  2. As it is a double-blind process, there will be no chance for the existence of a conflict of interest.
  3. Reviewer board will be provided with a structured format for reviewers to complete the review.
  4. Review comments or suggestions should be polite and constructive
  5. The Reviewer should have liability and not supposed to disclose the information regarding manuscript unless it is published.
  6. Reviewers are not allowed to contact the authors, without the prior intimation to the editor.
  7. If there is any kind of misconduct in the manuscript the reviewer should inform the editor.

Why review with us

The quality we follow

1. We rely on the English language and consistency and to highlight areas in the text that need grammatical attention.
2. The reviewer should decline to review if the article does not come under the scope of his research interest or not able enough to review the paper.
3. The reviewer is supposed to complete the review within the specified time limit. If the constraints made you unable to submit the report within the given period or if you want to extend the time limit, you should notify the editor.
4. The reviewer should not edit the content of the manuscript. The reviewer should highlight the content or track the changes needed
5. We check the work of the authors before acceptance and consider scientific compelling manuscripts.
6. The comments of the reviewers should be able to improve the quality of the manuscripts. Accept with minor changes as suggested, return to the author for changes in the manuscript according to the comments and subsequent resubmission for further review (Revise) or if the work has no real prospects to be published should be deliberately rejected.
7. We are also committed to rapid peer review process upon submission to publication.
8. To assist in maintaining a proper and healthy, rigorous peer review process. 9. To assist authors in their quality assessment and improvement of the papers by applying your professional expertise.