Greener Scholarly Publications

Excellence and Timeliness

Reviewer's Guidelines

 

 Obligations of Reviewers of Manuscripts


  1. Although the review process is an essential step before a manuscript can be published, reviewers are obligated to be fair, logical and unbiased when reviewing a manuscript. This should not be an opportunity to discredit a manuscript for selfish reasons. Reviewers should be able to explain and support their judgments properly so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Reviewers that default by sending unfair and biased comments will be blacklisted. 
  1. A reviewer who observes that he/she is not sufficiently qualified or lacks the time to review a manuscript should immediately alert our editorial office. The reviewer can also suggest other reviewers that are qualified to review the manuscript.  
  1. A reviewer that has accepted to review a manuscript should be responsible to give a feedback after receiving the manuscript. It is an unethical and a suspicious behavior for reviewers to stop communicating after receiving a manuscript. 
  1. A reviewer should comment on the originality of the study and its importance to the field of study. Reviewers should be able to have learnt something new if the research question and study is original. If the research question is unoriginal because related work has been published previously, please give references. The research question should easily be identified and clearly understood. Also, reviewers should indicate if the conclusion from the study is clear, understandable and valid. 
  1. A reviewer should ensure that the data of the study is authentic, adequate and well utilized. Please indicate unsuitable use of data and state your reasons. Alternative data sources may as well be suggested. In addition, elaborate on your reason, if you think that more evidence is required to back up the results. 
  1. A reviewer should ensure that the interpretation (discussion and conclusion) is balanced, supported by the data and without exaggerations. 
  1. A reviewer should be watchful to observe authors failure to cite relevant works. A reviewer should check if the authors provided adequate references where necessary. A reviewer should alert the editorial office of any suspected plagiarism or any other unethical conduct. The Reviewer should provide a link to the published manuscript, in a case of plagiarism. 
  1. A reviewer should answer these questions: Are the methods suitable? Is it well defined and detailed enough to allow peers in that field to reproduce the work? Have the experiments been properly performed and are they adequate? Are the experimental techniques consistent and suitable? Please give sufficient details if further improvements are to be made on the study method. Also clearly explain in detail, if more experiments should be carried out. 
  1. A reviewer should be observant even to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is strongly related to the reviewer's work in progress or published. The reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest or bias. 
  1. A reviewer should not review a manuscript that has been authored or co-authored by a person who is personally or professionally connected to the reviewer if the connection would lead to bias judgment of the manuscript. 
  1. Manuscripts received by a reviewer should be treated as confidential. It should not be exposed or discussed with others except, maybe to persons from whom specific guidance may be sought; in such a case, the editor should be informed. 
  1. Reviewers must not disclose or use the manuscript’s content except with the consent of the author.
  1. A reviewer should return their comments promptly, usually within ten (10) days after receiving a manuscript. If reviewers require additional time, they should contact the editorial office promptly for additional time or to assign other reviewers. 
  1. Discussion forums may be created for the reviewers of a manuscript to deliberate on issues regarding the manuscript with the editor. Reviewers should to be of best conduct and should be rational and respectful in their comments as they communicate with the other reviewers. Reviewers can disagree with the decision and opinion of another reviewer but in a polite and professional manner.

 

 
http://gjournals.org/index.php/editorial-team/reviewer-s-guidelines
gjournals.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2018-51
26088
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:X473HZ4XNR7OSPWF3AEQIFSFUNEFPFLQ
<urn:uuid:2a2b28b7-335f-49de-a79d-73d7501c9743>
2018-12-10T21:45:46Z
192.249.122.200
text/html
sha1:TWWDQRPBEGF6JZCL6UIXJC4TBYSZGHLV
<urn:uuid:325d7f7d-cf9a-4a77-aa0a-5bed9d6ed015>
http://gjournals.org/index.php/editorial-team/reviewer-s-guidelines
response
<urn:uuid:3c1a7b2d-096b-45a3-91d9-640f22bbf0d7>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2018-51
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for December 2018
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-143-18-132.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 0.11-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/