Review Process and Policy

Review Policy & Process

The review process allows the author(s) to improve their manuscript through editorial communications. Scholars/ Reviewers accepting to review a research paper have an ethical responsibility to complete this assignment professionally. The quality, credibility, and reputation of a journal also depend on the peer-review process. The peer-review process depends on trust and demands that a reviewer is supposed to fulfill ethically. The reviewers should:

  • Immediately inform the editor if they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review.
  • Be responsible to act punctually and submit review reports on time. They should immediately inform the editor of any possible delays.
  • The data included in the research paper is confidential and the reviewer is not allowed to use it for his/her personal study or any other academic or professional purpose.
  • Reviewers would consider the research paper a confidential document. They must not discuss its content on any platform except in cases where professional advice is being sought with the authorization of the editor. They are bound not to disclose the details of any research paper before its publication without the prior approval of the editor.
  • A reviewer must declare any conflicting interests (e.g. personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious). She/he should declare if the research paper under review is the same as his/her presently conducted the study.
  • A reviewer should be honest enough to declare if she/he is biased at any level towards the manuscript submitted.
  • The reviewer may justifiably criticize a manuscript but it would be inappropriate to resort to personal criticism of the author(s). He/she is supposed to objectively review with consideration high academic, scholarly, and scientific standards.
  • Reviewer should bring into the editor's notice, before writing the evaluation report, if the research paper is based on any previous research study or is a replica of an earlier work, or the work is plagiarized. Moreover, if the reviewer suspects the given results to be untrue/unrealistic/fake, or there has been an indication of violating ethical norms in the treatment of human beings (e.g. children, females, poor people, disabled, elderly, etc), all these points should also be identified to the editor.
  • For writing an evaluation report, reviewers are sent a prescribed form(s) from the editor and they are supposed to share their comments on that form.
  • The editor will surely consider the reviewer's comments and may send the paper to someone else for another opinion or send it back to the author(s) for revision before making any decision. But the final decision about publishing a research paper (either accept or reject) will solely rest with the editor. A reviewer cannot challenge the decision of the editor in any forum.
https://ojs.lgu.edu.pk/index.php/nooretahqeeq/RPAP
ojs.lgu.edu.pk
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-40
13031
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:XW34JMXB4NLVDY2Y73XMYQAQAQBOKVRH
<urn:uuid:fb1cf260-3d0d-42c7-aaa0-0d8c091bf6ae>
2022-09-30T15:38:14Z
52.163.253.156
text/html
sha1:37RR2RP6LHORSYQGM53BGFMO7IZUAXQH
<urn:uuid:524e158a-ad09-48f4-96c6-dec4ec87b558>
https://ojs.lgu.edu.pk/index.php/nooretahqeeq/RPAP
response
<urn:uuid:4a81f440-5a55-479e-8184-36ca177a4dc3>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-40
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September/October 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-251
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-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/