Rigorous peer review is a crucial aspect of high-quality academic publishing. Reviewers play a vital role in evaluating the manuscript and Reviewer comments are the prime source of an Editor in decision-making on an article.
Scription Publishers INC journals count on two external reviewers’ comments for an article, to deliver trustworthy decisions. Inconsequential submissions, the number of reviewers will escalate. However, the final judgement or decision will be in the hands of editorial board members.
Editorial board members suggest the expert reviewers or Scription Publishers INC reach out and notice the availability of reviewers whose scope is within the article, upon sending the abstract. Once the reviewer accepts to review the journal, editorial coordinator forwards a full-length article for the peer-review process.
We compassionately request our reviewers to read and follow the guidelines given below.
Reviewers should act in accordance with all the below rules to uphold the transparent article flow in Scription Publishers INC journals. Reviewers must be accountable to authors, editors and the editorial office to furnish the review comments timely.
The responsibilities are as follows
Based on the manuscript title and abstract, reviewers can accept or decline the invitation or they can suggest an alternate reviewer, however, it is not mandatory but references from your end could help us to find better reviewer who enhances the quality of the article.
- Scription Publishers INC follows double-blind peer review process, proximately after Editorial office initial assessment or pre quality check, reviewers are invited to review the manuscript and to provide detailed comments on the manuscript in the reviewer form.
- Ensure that the scope of the manuscript falls under your expertise before accepting to review so that, it aids in enhancing the article quality.
- Never furnish any personal comments in any section of reviewer form.
- All the review comments should be brief and clear so that author can easily understand and make the necessary changes in the manuscript.
- Reviewer’s comments should support one of the below-stated acts.
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reviewer can propose new concepts to authors to accomplish in the manuscript which would enhance quality of the article.
- Preserve the confidentiality of the manuscript by not sharing the information or content to any third parties.
- Communicating with editorial staff and cooperating in scheduled time review. If the time limit is not convenient then convey the same for time extension with editorial staff.
- Confirming the review form details relevant and clear to avoid any conflicts with authors and editors, which will act as a barrier to better scientific relationship.
- Notifying the editorial staff regarding the additional time or requirements from authors, if needed.
- Reviewing the revised article, if sent for the second review.
- Peer review comments provided must be unbiased and ethical meaningful comments to withheld the transparency of the journal and should not involve personal or professional conflicts.
- Submitted comments must be firmly confidential should not let to others (Authors) or third parties except the editorial office. At no time, disclose the assigned article’s content or results or videos/images or any of the supplementary material to non-reviewers.
- Reviewer Benefits and Credits:
- Scription Publishers INC journals cooperate with reviewer recognitions to acknowledgement and honour the reviewers. As reviewers play a dynamic role in maintaining the article quality which in turn reflects the journal quality, Scription Publishers INC compliment the reviewers by providing reviewer credits which are in form of:
- Awarding reviewer certificate as a token of your contribution and persistent support.
- Providing special concession on Individual or Institutional Membership.