We consider manuscript refereeing as a highly-regarded and honorable service to the readers and to the scientific community at large. Reviewers play a pivotal role not only in helping to evaluate individual manuscript but also in determining the overall quality of the journal. Therefore, we take great care when choosing reviewers and take into account their expertise and reputation in the field as well as our own past experience with them.
Reviewers should treat the whole review process and any correspondence with them in this regards, either from the editor or from the publisher, strictly confidential, nor should they discuss the manuscript directly with someone not involved in the review process without the editor's prior consent.
We believe that anonymity of the reviewers is important for an objective review of a manuscript. Therefore, we do not disclose identities of the reviewers to the authors or to other reviewers of the manuscript, during or after the review process, unless a reviewer specifically wants us to do so.
Our aim is to complete the whole review process and publication of a manuscript as promptly as possible in order to keep timeliness of the published research. We therefore ask our reviewers to respond to the editor's initial contact with them as soon as possible but no later than 24 hours, and with their review report within 15 days unless otherwise agreed with the editor.
While writing your report please consider that the authors are most likely to have put enormous efforts in conducting research as well as in writing the manuscript. Therefore, aim your report to be critical but constructive and avoid using offensive and discouraging language. In most cases reviewer's a report is conveyed to the authors as such. However, in rare case if we feel that a reviewer has used unfair language or have revealed any confidential information, we may appropriately edit it. There is a standard form for writing your report. You may complete the standard form and send it to the editor by email. While making a judgment on a manuscript we ask you to consider the following points:
Single-blind review
We are adopting single-blind review model to review the submitted manuscript. The names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. However, the name of the author is made known to the reviewers.
Advantages
The anonymity afforded to reviewers by this model allows them to speak honestly and impartially and to recommend decisions without having their critiques attributed. Also, knowledge of an author's identity can help reviewers place an article in the context of the author's earlier work.
Disadvantages
Anonymity may make reviewers more inclined or likely to be unnecessarily critical or harsh when commenting on the author's work.
Double-blind review
Neither the authors nor the reviewers identities are disclosed to the other.
Advantages
Outside of triple blind this is the surest way to ensure that the process is completely objective, that focus remains on the content of the article and the possibility of reviewer bias is eliminated. Reviewer bias may be favourable or unfavourable and could based on the author's previous work or country of origin, for example.
Disadvantages
In some fields it can be difficult to completely disguise the author's identity. Aspects of style, subject matter and the referencing of previous work are all clues that a reviewer may pick up on, especially in smaller or niche areas of research.
Triple-blind peer review
The identities of the author(s), reviewer(s) and editor(s) are not known to one another. This may be where the paper is anonymously uploaded to a journal website by the author(s) and the editor handles the submission without knowledge of who the author is. The author is identified only by a number. Communication happens through the website.
Advantages
Eliminates any potential bias
Disadvantages
Complex administration. As with double blind, author identity may be inferred from specialist subjects and references to previous work.
Open peer review
Both author and reviewer are made known to one another. The review may take place either pre or post publication.
Advantages
The transparency permitted by this model of review is a hugely advantageous factor, according to its advocates. The impression of increased accountability is thought to improve the substance and quality of reviews in terms of both tone and content, as reviewers are more conscious of offering substantive justification for their recommendations. The post publication format publicly recognizes the important work of the reviewers.
Disadvantages
Critics argue that such openness makes the process unavoidably susceptible to bias, subjectivity or obfuscation. Moreover, some reviewers may fear that they will suffer the consequences of negative reviews, either professionally or personally. More practically, the degree of support for open peer review models varies substantially by discipline.
Being on the editorial board or a reviewer of a journal is truly productive, pleasant and in fact prestigious which helps in add-on to the scientific world through the ways and guidelines given by experts in the relevant fields. Though, it is time consuming and often goes unobserved, there are some important rewards that make the editorial board members/reviewers worthwhile. You will be entitled following benefits while working with us as an editorial board member/reviewer of the journal.
If you are interested in being a reviewer for the journal, please join us via MNK Publication online system: Here are the procedures:
