Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers play a vital role in the publication process with a wide range of responsibilities. Our journal has developed some reviewer guidelines to support you at each stage of the process.

Before begin the review

  1. Only agree to review manuscripts for which you have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment in a timely manner.
  2. Reviewing can be a lot of work – before you commit, make sure that you can meet the deadline.
  3. Respond to the invitation as promptly as possible, as any delay in your decision slows down the review process and leads to prolonged waiting for the author.

During Review

  1. Respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process.
  2. Do Not use information obtained during the peer-review process for your own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage or to disadvantage or discredit others
  3. Respond in a reasonable time-frame, especially if you cannot do the review, and without intentional delay.
  4. Inform the journal promptly if you require an extension for completion of the review. You can make the communication via our email id smsjbm@cusat.ac.in.
  5. Follow journals’ policies on situations you consider to represent a conflict to reviewing.
  6. Not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript, including junior researchers you are mentoring, without obtaining prior permission from the journal.
  7. Notify the journal immediately if you come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, and are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article.
  8. Not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of their review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or author.
  9. Be objective and constructive in your reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript.
  10. Be specific in your criticisms, and provide evidence with appropriate references to substantiate your statements
  11. When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories as:  Reject (explain your reasoning in your report), Accept without revision and Revise – either major or minor. If you are recommending a revision, you must furnish the author with a clear, sound explanation of why this is necessary. However, the editor ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the article.

Post Review

  • Continue to keep details of the manuscript and its review confidential.
  • Respond promptly if contacted by a journal about matters related to their review of a manuscript and provide the information required.
  • Try to accommodate requests from journals to review revisions or re-submissions of manuscripts you have reviewed.