All the editors and reviewers of the International Journal of Research strives to provide scholars and research the best of the possible services. The publication of research papers within given time-frame ensures the much needed exposure and sharing of knowledge to the researchers community.
To ensure that the authors, get enough time for revising after the review comments we have made some changes in the provisions for review of the papers. Some of the notable points are as below:
- Paper submitted before 15th of the month will be considered for publication in the same month otherwise the paper will be published in next month.
- The reviewers or editors will make sure that the paper is reviewed within a given time-frame which is a week.
- The reviewers or editors who might not find probable suitable time during that week then they can revert back to Editor-in-Chief so that paper can be forwarded to other reviewer.
- The reviewers and editors will get a review format for this purpose and they will impartially express his review comments so that the author can improve the paper when asked to do so.
- The editors are free to refer the paper for review to their colleagues or reliable persons if they so thinks fit for the paper. But they should make sure that the paper is reviewed and returned back within the stipulated time-frame.
- You will be promoted to position of guest editor and then editor in due course of time taking into account your contribution as reviewer to IJR.
- You should review and send the review comments in due time period. If the article is not in your area of interest then revert back to editor so that the other reviewers can be approached.
- Register yourself as Reviewer and Read the Benefits for Reviewer.
Importance of Peer Reviewing
Peer review is an essential part of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer Reviewers need to recognize the importance of their role and commit to contributing high quality work to the process of publishing scholarly research.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a paper, or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process. If a selected referee agrees to review a paper, they should then adhere to timelines set by the editor.
Any papers received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers are encouraged to comment on ethical questions and possible research misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects, including animals).
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers are encouraged to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Editors and reviewers can contact Editor-in-Chief through email@example.com