The Scientific Pages

Peer Reviewer Guidelines


Peer Reviewer carried out by the scholarly peers play a crucial role in ensuring the scientific integrity of the scholarly record entailed with us. This process have various check points that understand the completeness of the manuscript such as, validity, originality/novelty, usefulness, contents, language, writing, style, audience and review. Each Reviewer must understand their role and their possible justification provided before they accept to review any manuscript.

Here are a few guidelines a Reviewer must ensure before taking up such assignments:

Before Accepting the Manuscript


Please cross check the manuscript and scrutinize if the manuscript falls under your research interests.

Please confirm if you can finish the review by the provided deadline or convey initially the extension needed so that the editorial office will organize accordingly.

If you are a fresher to this peer review processing, please learn and educate about the essentials of peer review processing.

Confidentiality Disclosures


Please do not share any of the aspects of the manuscripts with any one or do not give to any third person for review without informing to the editorial office. Please ensure that you will handle the manuscript confidentiality with utmost priority.

Do not use any of the content you read in the manuscript until Publication. Post publication you may use the content provided proper reference is cited.

Review Processing Essentials Checklist


Please ensure that you will follow the mentioned checklist while reviewing the manuscript.

Read the complete manuscript and gist the strengths and the drawback concerns. Do an unbiased review. Let not other factors influence the peer review assessment.

Add proper reasons and any suggestions if you have to support your listed strengths and drawbacks. Provide your reviews, objectively, constructively and your suggestions to improve the manuscripts.

There exists a chance of author not understanding your way of writing the comments. Thus make your reviews short and simple to follow. Provide a thorough review focusing the major key points of scientific writing such as, content, originality, writing, plagiarized content, liability, scientific validity, presentation and language.

Respond to the editorial office immediately, if they revert back for any possible queries on the review aspects.

Maintain the time frame provided so that the editorial office will organize the manuscript handling accordingly.

Avoid writing unwanted or unrelated reviews that may divert the topic of manuscript.

Please ensure to contact editorial office if you find any missing documents with reference to the manuscript. The editorial office will send you the necessary documents at the earliest possible.

Please understand it is the author's manuscript and do not write reviews that will completely change the author's writing. Please provide closely related comments.

All the reviews provided must be neutral and should not affect the sensitivity of the language issues that may insult authors. Do not use any rude language while writing reviews. Editorial office strictly opposes any such comments.

Any comments that are specific to editor may be provided with a key note *confidential so that they are omitted from the reviews sent to the author's for review revision.

Do not suggest the authors to include the citations to the reviewer's in order to increase the citations or any academic reasons. It is against the ethics of peer review processing.

Reviewers must understand that the final decision of the manuscript publication or rejection will stay with the Editor despite of their recommendations. However the recommendations and the revisions will be closely scrutinized by the Editor before acceptance.