Peer review is the system for checking the aspect of quality, efficacy, and applicability of scholarly analysis. The process aims to provide authors with effective assessment in distinction to relevant experts that they can value to make enhancement to their work. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are first evaluated on the basis of scientific quality, efficacy to be weighed and asserted upon by independent experts within the same field of research.
The assessment and critique developed from peer review administer authors with feedback to improve their work and desperately allows the editor to assess the paper’s suitability for publication in the journal.
We follow double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are hidden from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughtout the review process.
We will provide a structured form for reviewers to complete the review.
If a conflict of interest exists, you should make the editor aware of this as soon as possible.
The Review suggestions should be courteous and constructive.
The Reviewer should have liability and should not disclose the information in the manuscript unless it is published.
Reviewers are not allowed to contact the authors, without the permission of the editor.
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 Reviewers on English language and consistency and to point out areas in the text that need attention.
2. The reviewer should decline to review the article if the reviewer does not come under the scope of the topic or not enough able to review the paper.
3. The reviewer is supposed to complete the review within the time limit of two weeks. If you will be unable to submit the report within the given time or if you want to extend the time limit, you should notify it to 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; we consider scientifically 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 and subsequently resubmit for further review or if the work has no real prospects to be published should be deliberately rejected.
7. We are also committed to fastest peer review process upon submission to publication.
8. To assist in maintaining a good rigorous peer review process.
9. To help authors improve their papers, applying your professional expertise to help others.