Peer Review Process

• Objectivity

• Fairness

• Feedback

• Conflict of Interest

• What is peer review?

• How does it work?

Peer Review Process

Peer review is a crucial component of the publication process, and reviewers should be objective, fair, and respectful of the authors' work.

Objectivity:

Reviewers should approach the review process with an open mind and attempt to be objective in evaluating the manuscript.

Fairness:

Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on the quality of the research and the relevance of the content, not on the identity or institution of the author.

Feedback:

Reviewers must provide constructive feedback to authors, highlighting strengths and weaknesses in their research and providing suggestions for improvement.

Conflict of Interest:

Reviewers must report any conflict of interest that could impact their ability to objectively assess the manuscript.

Why do peer review?

Peer review is an integral part of scientific publishing that confirms the validity of the manuscript. Peer reviewers are experts who volunteer their time to help improve the manuscripts they review. By undergoing peer review, manuscripts should become:

• More robust - peer reviewers may point out gaps in a paper that require more explanation or additional experiments.
• Easier to read - if parts of your paper are difficult to understand, reviewers can suggest changes.
• More useful - peer reviewers also consider the importance of your paper to others in your field.

What is peer review?

Peer review is the system used to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published. Independent researchers in the relevant research area assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity and significance to help editors determine whether a manuscript should be published in their journal.

How does it work?

peer reviewer

When a manuscript is submitted to a journal, it is assessed to see if it meets the criteria for submission. If it does, the editorial team will select potential peer reviewers within the field of research to peer-review the manuscript and make recommendations.

There are four main types of peer review used:

• Single-blind:

  the reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript unless the reviewer chooses to sign their report.



• Double-blind:

  the reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript.




• Open Peer:

  authors know who the reviewers are, and the reviewers know who the authors are. If the manuscript is accepted, the named reviewer reports are published alongside the article and the authors’ response to the reviewer.




• Transparent Peer:

  the reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript unless the reviewer chooses to sign their report. If the manuscript is accepted, the anonymous reviewer reports are published alongside the article and the authors’ response to the reviewer.

Different journals use different types expet Open Peer of Peer R eview. You can find out which peer-review system is used by a particular journal in the journal’s ‘About’ page.

Initial evaluation

IUSRJs performs essential editorial screening on all submissions, before assigning them to Editors. On receiving a manuscript, Editors should check if it is potentially suitable for publication. They should consider whether the article suits the scientific scope of the journal, as well as the basic quality of the article. Submissions failing this evaluation should be rejected immediately. All other articles should be sent for formal peer review.

Recruiting peer reviewers

Editors should invite at least two reviewers to assess the manuscript. We encourage Editors to invite reviewers of their choosing, but IUSRJ’s software will also provide reviewer suggestions. There are many important factors to consider when selecting a peer reviewer.

Do they cover every necessary expertise?

It may not be possible for a particular referee to adequately assess all aspects of a manuscript. For example, if a manuscript covers practical laboratory-based experiments and high-level theoretical work, it may not be possible to find a single reviewer with all the necessary skills. Editors should ensure that the reviewers are capable, between them, of covering the breadth of techniques employed. Editors may choose reviewers from their existing academic network. They may have come into contact with suitable reviewers through conferences or collaboration or as colleagues. Searching for key terms in abstracting and indexing services is another excellent way to find referees. Asking those who decline an invitation to suggest similarly qualified experts, perhaps from their own research group or institution, is an excellent way of gathering further recommendations. Reviewers may, upon request, consult with colleagues from their own research group so long as the confidentiality of the manuscript can be maintained. In such cases, we ask that they note the name of the colleague(s) in the ‘comments to the editor’ section of their report.