 > 
 > 
Information for Reviewers

Information

Innovation, Research, and Progress: Read Our Leading Journals Now!
Journals

Connect with Peers and Establish Your Academic Presence: Use Our Profile ID!
APID

The Ultimate Author Services Hub: Unlock Your Writing Potential!
ConWiz

Where Ideas Meet Action: Attend Our Innovative Conferences!
STM Conferences

The Key to Your Success: Our Dynamic and Engaging Training Programs!
Training Programs

The Ultimate Platform for Aspiring Authors: Submit Your Manuscript Today!
Manuscript engine






Last updated: 2022-04-30
Who are Reviewers?

The role of a reviewer in academic journals is to evaluate the quality and validity of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers are typically experts in the field relevant to the manuscript, and their job is to assess whether the research is sound, original, and contributes to the advancement of knowledge in the field.

The reviewer's primary responsibility is to provide feedback to the editor and the authors. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses and suggest improvements or changes that could enhance its quality. They must also ensure that the research is ethical and adheres to the journal's policies and standards.

Benefits to review articles for STM Journals
  • Participate in Annual Reviewers Challenges
  • Recognition and Certifications
  • Free Access to the Annual Reviewer Conference
  • Access to Exclusive Reviewers Zone on APID
  • Networking Opportunities with Global Reviewers
  • Track Your Contributions and Publications on APID
  • Access to Live and Recorded Reviewers Training Sessions by Experts

Interested? Join Us as a volunteer reviewer now!

Become a Reviewer
  • Register on APID: Go to the APID website and create an account by providing your personal and contact details.
  • Complete the reviewer application form: Fill out the application form to Join as a reviewer. If you already have an account, ensure that the "area of expertise" section on your profile accurately reflects your field of knowledge.
  • Submit to relevant repositories: Submit the article to relevant repositories. This will make the article more accessible to readers and increase its visibility.
  • Participate in conferences: Presenting the article at conferences is a great way to gain exposure and engage with other researchers in the field however this can only be done if article is published in Open Access Publishing Format. Consider submitting an abstract or proposal to relevant conferences.
  • Collaborate with the media: Reach out to journalists or media outlets that cover topics related to the article. This can help to increase the article's visibility and impact outside of academic circles.
  • Engage with readers: Respond to comments and questions from readers on the article's publication platform or social media. This can help to build relationships with other researchers and potentially lead to future collaborations.
Eligibility, Responsibilities & Eligibility

Reviewers evaluate journal article submissions based on the journal's requirements, predefined criteria, and the quality, completeness, and accuracy of the research presented. They provide feedback on the paper, make suggestions for improvements, and advise the editor on whether to accept, reject, or request changes to the article. The final decision is always made by the editor, but reviewers play an important role in determining the outcome.

Eligibility

Reviewers should meet the following criteria:

  • Research background qualified to review the manuscript, usually a PhD or MD degree is necessary,

  • Be an active researcher, expertise should be suitable for the manuscript,

  • Possess official and recognized affiliation (University or Research Institute) relevant experience of 1-7 years and have a proven publication record in the field of the submitted paper,

  • Not hold any conflicts of interest with the authors, including if they have published together in the last five years.

Responsibility
  • Have the necessary expertise to judge the scientific quality of the manuscript,
  • Prior to commencing a review, it is essential to declare any conflicts of interest.
  • If unable to accept a review invitation, declining promptly is crucial. Additionally, if possible, suggesting alternative reviewers who meet the required criteria is advisable.
  • Upon acceptance of a review invitation, commit to submitting the review report within the stipulated timeframe. If an extension or withdrawal is necessary due to changing circumstances, promptly inform the Journal Manager.
  • Evaluate each submitted manuscript impartially. Prepare a thorough review report, offering an overall impression of the manuscript and specific comments on various sections.
  • Should you suspect any form of misconduct, promptly notify the editors for further investigation.
  • Treat the assigned manuscripts with confidentiality, refraining from discussing their content with unauthorized individuals.
  • When considering co-reviewing with a colleague, seek prior permission from the editorial office. Subsequently, when submitting the review report, ensure that both names are included as co-reviewers.
Why you should become our Reviewer?
  • Contribute to the Academic Community: Reviewing allows you to contribute to the academic community and share your knowledge and expertise.
  • Improve the Quality of Research: Through your review, you can help improve the quality of research by identifying errors, inconsistencies, or areas that require further clarification.
  • Help Shape the Field: By providing feedback on manuscripts, you can help shape the field by identifying emerging trends, areas of significance, or gaps in knowledge.
  • Expand Your Own Knowledge: Reviewing manuscripts can also be a way to expand your own knowledge and stay up-to-date with the latest research in your field.
  • Build Your Reputation: Being an active reviewer can also help build your reputation as an expert in your field and increase your visibility within the academic community.
Benefits

As a valued member of our reviewer community, you will enjoy numerous benefits that will enhance your professional growth and academic standing. Your expertise and knowledge in your field make you an ideal candidate, and we believe that you will greatly benefit from the numerous advantages of being a member of our board. Here are some compelling advantages you can expect:

  • Participate in Annual Reviewers Challenges: As a member of our Reviewer Board, you will have the opportunity to participate in our annual Reviewers Challenges. These challenges are designed to recognize and reward the outstanding performance of our reviewers. By participating, you can showcase your expertise, contribute to scholarly research, and stand a chance to win awards for being the best-performing and leading contributor reviewer.

  • Recognition and Awards: We firmly believe in acknowledging the valuable contributions of our reviewers. By joining our Reviewer Board, you position yourself for recognition and awards based on your exceptional reviewing efforts. These awards not only serve as a testament to your commitment to academic excellence but also enhance your professional reputation within the research community.
  • Free Access to the Annual Reviewer Conference: Our Reviewer Board members enjoy exclusive benefits, including complimentary access to our Annual Reviewer Conference. This conference is a premier gathering of renowned scholars, researchers, and industry experts. Attending this event provides a platform for networking, knowledge exchange, and collaboration, opening doors to new opportunities and collaborations.
  • Access to Exclusive Reviewers Zone on APID: Upon joining our Reviewer Board, you gain access to the exclusive Reviewers Zone on our Academic Publishing and Information Database (APID). This dedicated zone provides a wealth of resources, including tools, guidelines, and best practices, to further enhance your reviewing skills. Additionally, you can download your contribution certificates and access discount vouchers and coupons for our publications and related events.
  • Networking Opportunities with Global Reviewers: As a member of our Reviewer Board, you will have the chance to connect and network with esteemed reviewers from around the world. Engaging with this diverse community fosters global collaborations, broadens your professional network, and allows for the exchange of ideas and best practices.
  • Track Your Contributions and Publications on APID: APID offers a comprehensive platform for tracking your contributions and publications as a reviewer. You can easily monitor and showcase your reviewing history, demonstrating your expertise and commitment to the research community. This feature enhances your professional profile and increases visibility within your field.
  • Access to Live and Recorded Reviewers Training Sessions by Experts: Our Reviewer Board members have privileged access to live and recorded training sessions conducted by renowned experts in their respective fields. These training sessions are tailored to enhance your reviewing skills, update you on the latest research methodologies, and provide valuable insights into the scholarly publishing process.

    By joining our Reviewer Board, you become an integral part of our mission to advance knowledge and maintain the highest standards of academic publishing. Your contributions as a reviewer will shape the quality and impact of scholarly research.

    We highly value your expertise, and we are confident that your participation in our Reviewer Board will be mutually beneficial. If you are interested in accepting our invitation, please let us know, and we will provide you with further details on how to proceed.

Guidelines for Conducting Reviews
  • Pre-Review Considerations

  • Manage Reviews

  • Organizing Your Review

  • Post-Review Considerations

Before beginning the review process, there are several important points to consider:

  • Expertise: Ensure that you have the appropriate level of expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. If you are not an expert in the area, consider declining the invitation to review or recommending a colleague who is more qualified.
  • Conflict of Interest:Check for any potential conflicts of interest, such as having collaborated with the authors or having a personal relationship with them. If you have any conflicts of interest, disclose them to the editor immediately.
  • Time: Consider whether you have the time to complete a thorough review within the given timeframe. If you cannot meet the deadline, notify the editor as soon as possible.
  • Ethical Considerations:Make sure you understand the ethical considerations involved in the review process, such as confidentiality and data sharing.
  • Guidelines: Familiarize yourself with the reviewer guidelines provided by the journal, including the evaluation criteria, feedback format, and submission requirements.
  • Record Keeping:Keep a record of the manuscript you are reviewing, including the submission date, the manuscript title, and the journal name. This will help you avoid reviewing the same manuscript multiple times.
  • Communication: If you have any questions or concerns about the review process or the manuscript, communicate them clearly and professionally to the editor.

By considering these points before beginning the review process, you can ensure that you are well-prepared to provide a thorough, objective, and constructive review that meets the standards of the journal.

Peer-Review Process

The peer review process involves the evaluation of scholarly work by experts in the same field or related fields to ensure that it meets the standards of quality and accuracy before it is published. It typically includes the submission of a manuscript to a journal, an initial screening by the editor, and a detailed evaluation by at least two independent reviewers. The reviewers provide feedback on the manuscript, which the editor uses to make a decision on whether to accept or reject it. The peer review process helps ensure the highest standards of quality and accuracy in published research.

How to Apply

Interested individuals can these detailed steps to express their interests or apply through the APID platform:

  • Registration on APID
  • Navigate to the APID website using your preferred web browser.
  • Locate and click on the "Register" or "Sign Up" button, usually found on the top right corner of the homepage.
  • Enter your email address and request an OTP, which will be sent to your email. If you don't receive the OTP, click on resend.
  • Enter the OTP you receive to verify your account. After verification, click continue to set your password.
  • Accessing the Advisory Board Application
  • After verification, you'll be directed to update your basic details, click on next, you will be asked if you wish to apply for Editorial Board/Advisory Board, click on yes and click update profile/Claim APID. You will be redirected to the application form
  • Completing the Application Form
  • Fill out the form in its entirety. Ensure that all sections are completed accurately.
  • Submission
  • Once satisfied with your application, click on the "Submit" or "Apply" button.
  • A confirmation mail will be sent to your registered mail address, indicating that your application has been received.
  • Awaiting Response
  • After submission, the advisory board's selection committee will review applications.
  • Once the review process is complete, you'll be notified of the decision.
  • Additional Tips
  • Ensure your provided contact information is accurate to facilitate easy communication.
  • Regularly check your email, including the spam/junk folder, for any communications regarding your application.
  • Familiarize yourself with the board's current members, goals, and initiatives to be well-prepared in case of an interview.
Ethical and General Considerations

We uphold the stringent standards outlined by COPE, OASPA, WAME, and DOAJ for maintaining the ethics and transparency of scholarly publishing. In line with this, we kindly request that reviewers who engage in the review process also uphold the ethical principles. We encourage reviewers to consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers when evaluating manuscripts submitted to our STM journals.

  • Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Prior to commencing a review, it is essential to declare any conflicts of interest.
  • Timely Decline and Recommend Alternatives: If unable to accept a review invitation, declining promptly is crucial. Additionally, if possible, suggesting alternative reviewers who meet the required criteria is advisable.
  • Adherence to Review Timeline: Upon acceptance of a review invitation, commit to submitting the review report within the stipulated timeframe. If an extension or withdrawal is necessary due to changing circumstances, promptly inform the editorial office.
  • Objective and Comprehensive Review: Evaluate each submitted manuscript impartially. Prepare a thorough review report, offering an overall impression of the manuscript and specific comments on various sections.
  • Reporting Suspected Misconduct: Should you suspect any form of misconduct, promptly notify the editors for further investigation.
  • Maintain Confidentiality: Treat the assigned manuscripts with confidentiality, refraining from discussing their content with unauthorized individuals.
  • Co-Reviewing Protocol: When considering co-reviewing with a colleague, seek prior permission from the editorial office. Subsequently, when submitting the review report, ensure that both names are included as co-reviewers.
Reviewer Assessment Criteria

For a thorough peer review, reviewers are requested to complete an online review report form encompassing the crucial aspects to be assessed during manuscript evaluation. The form includes the following key points:

  • Title and Abstract: Assess the clarity, relevance, and conciseness of the title and abstract in accurately representing the manuscript's content.
  • Introduction: Evaluate the effectiveness of the introduction in providing context, highlighting the research gap, and stating the objectives.
  • Literature Review: Examine the thoroughness of the literature review, its relevance to the research, and its contribution to the field's knowledge.
  • Methodology: Review the research design, data collection methods, and analytical techniques for their appropriateness, clarity, and validity.
  • Results: Evaluate the presentation of results, including data accuracy, clarity, and appropriate use of visuals.
  • Discussion: Analyze the interpretation of results, connection to research questions, and comparison to existing literature.
  • Conclusions: Assess the conclusions' alignment with the research objectives, supported by evidence, and potential implications.
  • References: Check the accuracy, completeness, and proper citation of references in the manuscript.
  • Clarity and Structure: Evaluate the overall organization, coherence, and readability of the manuscript.
  • Originality and Contribution: Determine the manuscript's novelty, significance, and potential contribution to the field.
  • Ethical Considerations: Identify any ethical concerns, plagiarism, or potential conflicts of interest.
  • Language and Writing: Examine the quality of writing, grammar, and adherence to the journal's style guidelines.
  • Recommendation: Provide a clear recommendation regarding the manuscript's suitability for publication, along with constructive feedback for improvement.
  • Confidential Comments to Editors: Include any confidential comments or concerns for the editors' consideration.

After thoroughly evaluating a manuscript, reviewers are asked to provide an overall recommendation to editors, considering the following scenarios:

  • Accept in its current form if the manuscript is presented clearly and accurately, the methodology is sufficiently detailed, the conclusion is well-supported by data, the research significantly contributes to the field, and there are only minor grammatical errors or inaccuracies.
  • Minor revisions are required if the manuscript is scientifically sound and acceptable, but it necessitates simple improvements in expression and supplementary details. These revisions should not impact the method and conclusion's logical flow compared to the current version. Reviewers should offer specific itemized comments and suggestions.
  • Major revisions are necessary if the study's theme holds potential importance and relevance to the field, but it needs re-evaluation and justification following the inclusion of missed details or explanations. Reviewers are encouraged to provide distinct comments on key revisions alongside minor ones. Typically, manuscripts undergoing major revisions will undergo a second review by the same reviewer, unless the reviewer is unavailable for further evaluation
  • Rejection is warranted if the manuscript exhibits confirmed misconduct, methodological flaws, or lacks an original contribution. In cases of suspected misconduct, reviewers are urged to directly communicate the concern to the handling editor for prompt investigation.

Reviewers are encouraged to offer feedback following their reviews. It's important to note that editors reach decisions on manuscripts after thoroughly considering all comments from reviewers. Editors might make decisions that differ from reviewers' suggestions. If such a situation arises, editors will provide clear justifications to both reviewers and authors for their decision.

Situations When Reviewers Should Decline to Review a Submission
  • When they have a conflict of interest, such as a personal or financial relationship with the authors, funding agencies, or institutions involved in the research.
  • When they lack the necessary expertise or knowledge to evaluate the manuscript.
  • When they do not have enough time to complete the review within the given deadline.
  • When they have previously reviewed the same manuscript for another journal or publication.
  • When they have a bias or prejudice that could compromise the fairness of the review process.
  • When they have a personal or professional relationship with the editor that could influence the review process.
  • When they are unable to maintain confidentiality or privacy, such as if they have shared the manuscript with others or have a conflict of interest that could compromise confidentiality.

Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest in the "Confidential" section of the review form, which will be taken into account by the editor. Reviewers should also disclose whether they have had any prior discussions about the manuscript with the authors.

Conflicts of interest
  • Conflict of interest (COI) can arise when a reviewer has a personal or financial relationship with the authors, funding agencies, or institutions involved in the research.
  • COI can also occur if the reviewer has a competing interest, such as a personal or professional agenda that could influence their evaluation of the manuscript.
  • To avoid COI, reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editor before accepting a review assignment.
  • If a reviewer becomes aware of a potential COI during the review process, they should inform the editor immediately and withdraw from the review.
  • COI can undermine the integrity of the peer review process and compromise the quality and fairness of the evaluation of the manuscript.
Preserving Confidentiality throughout the Peer Review Process

During the single- or double-blind peer review process, manuscripts are expected to be strictly confidential. Reviewers are not allowed to disclose the manuscript's content, including the Abstract, or discuss its content with anyone outside the peer review process.

In addition, reviewers should be cautious not to reveal their identity to the authors, either in their comments or in the metadata for reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format. However, if needed, reviewers may consult with colleagues from their research group, provided that they maintain the manuscript's confidentiality. To do so, reviewers should first contact [email protected] or the Academic Editor handling the manuscript and note the name(s) of their colleague(s) in the "Comments to the editor" section of their report.

Further Correspondence

To receive further assistance on joining as a reviewer, please contact us via email at [email protected] or submit your query through our online portal.
https://journals.stmjournals.com/information-for-reviewers/
journals.stmjournals.com
CC-MAIN-2024-10
1049378
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:BCX2PO6MQ4BNZLIHXRPEKEVU37TFGYAI
<urn:uuid:2fc03f42-1bae-4b86-8ce3-269f2a28f0cb>
2024-02-25T09:36:31Z
104.21.28.53
text/html
sha1:DF37PXBGE5ON4JDUP6CR5QXGTKLSFPB7
<urn:uuid:dd8b9dc5-deea-44b3-989a-39bb1954e25c>
https://journals.stmjournals.com/information-for-reviewers/
length
response
<urn:uuid:297853e9-24fe-4a28-8d41-5e875ea7a4f9>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-10
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for February/March 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-169
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/