Guidelines for Reviewers
CRITERIA FOR PUBLICATION
a. The study shows the results of scientific research/review/case reports
b. The aims, methodology, results and analyses is well represented and is sufficiently detailed.
c. The research is duly approved by the concerned ethics committee.
d. The statistical analysis is technically right and the conclusions drawn are in support of the data presented.
e. The articles are written is standard English(UK).
f. The results have not been published elsewhere.
The submitted articles and scientific papers will be evaluated based on the above criteria.
Selection of the Manuscript:
Submission of Original articles, review articles, case reports, letter to the Editor and announcements will be considered for publication. Opinions, essays and other unrelated articles will not be considered for publication.
The chosen manuscripts will be further systematically reviewed for detailed aspects and criteria.
Presentation and Documentation of the Manuscript:
The manuscripts will be extensively reviewed for the detailed and well documented presentation of the methodology and analyses. This is to facilitate a sound platform for further researches to be conducted.
Ethics Approval:
The research must have been conducted only after the approval of a legitimate Ethics Committee. The articles will not be published if the conducted study does not satisfy the criteria of the Ethics Committee.
Statistical Analyses:
The statistical analyses of the results must be of high technical standards to allow conclusions to be drawn from the presented results. The conclusions presented must be justified by the data presented. Inappropriate conclusion and interpretation of results is liable for rejection.
Articles to be presented in English:
The articles submitted are to be well worded, clear and unambiguous written in English(UK). If the language is poor and the presentation unclear the article is justifiable for rejection.
Results published elsewhere:
The results which have been published earlier in various other journals will not be published. If found so, the article can be rejected.
SELECTION OF REVIEWER
The reviewers will be selected by the Board of Editors based on their expertise, experience, reputation, recommendations and based on past performances. The exchange of information between the reviewers and the Editorial Board is strictly confidential to maintain the efficiency of the review process.
WRITING THE REVIEW
The reviewers’ report is mainly an expert opinion regarding the submitted manuscript. Hence, the report should contain detailed and explicit feedback on the quality of the manuscript and the aspects and points to be improved upon to ensure the paper is acceptable for publication.
The reviewers’ report can be worded based on the following:
1. The claims of the submitted paper
2. The literature quoted in accordance with the study
3. The data supporting the claims.
4. Future of the current research.
5. Benefit to the scientific community
The reviewer must strictly adhere to maintaining confidentiality while conducting the review process. The reviewers under no circumstances must make use of the information acquired during the review process before the publication of the paper.
EDITORIAL PROCESS:
Once the manuscripts are peer reviewed they will be warranted to go through an editorial review where the articles are processed by the Board of Editors. This process is mainly aimed at providing satisfactory, unambiguous and valid information to the scientific world.
The editorial board may conduct a review process alone or in coordination with the reviewers and come up with a decision for the authors.
The decision may be:
1. Accept
2. Minor Revision
3. Major Revision
4. Reject
Based on the decision, the letter to the authors will be drafted accordingly.
Timely Review
The review process is expected to be conducted efficiently and on-time. The main aim is to provide a valuable service to the authors and scientific community at large.
REVIEWERS’ REPORTS
The reviewers’ reports will be subject to strict confidentiality and made available to the editorial board for further processing. The reviewers are urged to put down honest reviews and practical comments for the authors for the improvement of the study. The reviewers must avoid the use of offensive language in the review reports.
As far as possible, reviewers who may have a competing interest in the study or those directly or indirectly in collaboration with the study or with similar projects or those who may benefit financially from the study to be reviewed will be ruled out. The reviewers are requested to refrain themselves if they recognize any of the aforementioned interests or feel they will be unable to offer an impartial review
a. The study shows the results of scientific research/review/case reports
b. The aims, methodology, results and analyses is well represented and is sufficiently detailed.
c. The research is duly approved by the concerned ethics committee.
d. The statistical analysis is technically right and the conclusions drawn are in support of the data presented.
e. The articles are written is standard English(UK).
f. The results have not been published elsewhere.
The submitted articles and scientific papers will be evaluated based on the above criteria.
Selection of the Manuscript:
Submission of Original articles, review articles, case reports, letter to the Editor and announcements will be considered for publication. Opinions, essays and other unrelated articles will not be considered for publication.
The chosen manuscripts will be further systematically reviewed for detailed aspects and criteria.
Presentation and Documentation of the Manuscript:
The manuscripts will be extensively reviewed for the detailed and well documented presentation of the methodology and analyses. This is to facilitate a sound platform for further researches to be conducted.
Ethics Approval:
The research must have been conducted only after the approval of a legitimate Ethics Committee. The articles will not be published if the conducted study does not satisfy the criteria of the Ethics Committee.
Statistical Analyses:
The statistical analyses of the results must be of high technical standards to allow conclusions to be drawn from the presented results. The conclusions presented must be justified by the data presented. Inappropriate conclusion and interpretation of results is liable for rejection.
Articles to be presented in English:
The articles submitted are to be well worded, clear and unambiguous written in English(UK). If the language is poor and the presentation unclear the article is justifiable for rejection.
Results published elsewhere:
The results which have been published earlier in various other journals will not be published. If found so, the article can be rejected.
SELECTION OF REVIEWER
The reviewers will be selected by the Board of Editors based on their expertise, experience, reputation, recommendations and based on past performances. The exchange of information between the reviewers and the Editorial Board is strictly confidential to maintain the efficiency of the review process.
WRITING THE REVIEW
The reviewers’ report is mainly an expert opinion regarding the submitted manuscript. Hence, the report should contain detailed and explicit feedback on the quality of the manuscript and the aspects and points to be improved upon to ensure the paper is acceptable for publication.
The reviewers’ report can be worded based on the following:
1. The claims of the submitted paper
2. The literature quoted in accordance with the study
3. The data supporting the claims.
4. Future of the current research.
5. Benefit to the scientific community
The reviewer must strictly adhere to maintaining confidentiality while conducting the review process. The reviewers under no circumstances must make use of the information acquired during the review process before the publication of the paper.
EDITORIAL PROCESS:
Once the manuscripts are peer reviewed they will be warranted to go through an editorial review where the articles are processed by the Board of Editors. This process is mainly aimed at providing satisfactory, unambiguous and valid information to the scientific world.
The editorial board may conduct a review process alone or in coordination with the reviewers and come up with a decision for the authors.
The decision may be:
1. Accept
2. Minor Revision
3. Major Revision
4. Reject
Based on the decision, the letter to the authors will be drafted accordingly.
Timely Review
The review process is expected to be conducted efficiently and on-time. The main aim is to provide a valuable service to the authors and scientific community at large.
REVIEWERS’ REPORTS
The reviewers’ reports will be subject to strict confidentiality and made available to the editorial board for further processing. The reviewers are urged to put down honest reviews and practical comments for the authors for the improvement of the study. The reviewers must avoid the use of offensive language in the review reports.
As far as possible, reviewers who may have a competing interest in the study or those directly or indirectly in collaboration with the study or with similar projects or those who may benefit financially from the study to be reviewed will be ruled out. The reviewers are requested to refrain themselves if they recognize any of the aforementioned interests or feel they will be unable to offer an impartial review
