Role of Reviewers: Peer review process is very important step in any publication and which is essential to the journal in assisting in making editorial decisions and assisting authors in manuscript improvement. Reviewers should point out relevant publications not cited in the manuscript and point out any similarities with previously published works. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts with conflicts of interest, competitive, financial, or collaborative. If a potential reviewer feels unqualified to review the manuscript, that reviewer should notify the editors immediately and decline the review. Manuscripts received for review will be treated as confidential documents and not shown or discussed with other without authorization from the editors. Authors should expect to receive reviewer reports in a prompt manner, normally within three weeks. Reviewer misconduct (breach of confidentiality, delay of peer review, plagiarism, or conflicts of interest) will not be tolerated.
- Unbiased review process is very essential, so reviewers should evaluate manuscript based on the scientific merit in an impartial and unbiased way.
- Reviewers should give comments on uniqueness and originality of the work.
- Plagiarism of Data: Data showing any type of suspicion, duplication and manipulation must be brought to the notice of the author(s).
- Interpretation of Result or discussion should hover around the result and should not include irrelevant and unachievable statement.
- Reviewers should evaluate the appropriateness of described methodology, study design etc
- Review process should complete in a timely manner.
- The information related to the article under review should be kept confidential.
- Reviewer should not retain or copy the manuscript.
- Any potential conflicts of interest should be communicated to the Editor
- The review process should be based on fairness policy in intellectual and scientific contents regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenry nor political values of author(s).
Summary: Pin points the strength and weakness of the article considering potential importance of the work in the context of present and future.
Conclusion: At the end reviewer(s) can recommend necessary corrections needed to accept the paper, if they are actually required, else recommend it for publication. If found unsuitable the paper should be declared as unacceptable for publication.
Guidelines of Reviewers for Review Manuscript: IJMIR is not making any hard and fast rules to analyse a manuscript, reviewer can do it on case to case basis considering the merit, quality, and originality of the submitted manuscript.
Following are some general guidelines may be checked in a review:
- Structure of the submitted manuscript and its relevance to author guidelines
- Purpose and Objective of the manuscript.
- Method of using transitions in the manuscript
- Given Introduction and the provided conclusion/ suggestions/recommendations etc.
- Provided References to substantiate the content.
- Grammar, punctuation and spelling.
- Plagiarism issues
- Suitability of the article to the need.
- Any conflict of interest that may be detected.
- Knowledge addition to the scientific community.
- Author(s) involvement in preparing the article and their interest shown towards scientific development.
Reviewers submit the evaluation results along with their recommendations as one of the following actions:
- Accepted without Change
- Accepted with Minor Changes
- Accepted with Major Changes
- Rejected (Specific Reasons)
Note: All our reviewers are requested to go through the articles submitted to them for review in detail and give the review comments without any bias which will increase the quality of our journal.