Peer Review Policy and Process


IRCMJ logo

"Peer review" as a judgment on an academic work may affect the whole work and life an academic person and is of the utmost goal of managing a journal.

Rules of External Peer Review:

  • All submitted manuscripts are subjected to the external peer review and editorial approval.

  • Articles will be sent to at least 3 independent reviewers in the related field.

  • Normally, the reviewers are blinded to the authors' identities and their affiliations while the associate editors have full access to them.

  • Authors are usually notified within 2-3 months about the acceptability of their manuscript.

  • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise within the topic area of the submission, and their purpose is to assist the authors and the journal by providing a critical review of the manuscript.

  • After receiving the reviewers’ comments, authors are requested to send the revised article and a copy of their reply to the reviewers including the comment and explaining the replies to the questions and the changes made to the revised version. The communication regarding a specific manuscript will be done only between the journal and the designated corresponding author.

Responsibility for the Reviewers

Based on the agreement with our reviewers, they are committed to these regulations:

  • Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.

  • Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. No self-knowledge of the author(s) must affect their comments and decision.

  • Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments in 500 to 1000 words.

  • Reviewers may identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.

  • Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

  • Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

 

Reviewers responsibilities

Reviewers responsibilities

The reviewer is responsible for both the author and the editor in regard to the manuscript. Peer review is the principal mechanism by which the quality of research is judged. Most funding decisions in science and the academic advancement of scientists are based on peer-reviewed publications.

 

Peer reviewer responsibilities towards the author

  1. Providing written, unbiased feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work

  2. Comments given by the reviewers should be clear and relevant to the subject and accurate which creates interest to the authors.

  3. Personal & Financial conflicts must be avoided.

  4. The review process should be confidentially maintained.

 

Peer reviewer responsibilities towards the editor

  1. Notifying the editor immediately if unable to review in a timely manner and providing the names of other potential reviewers if possible.

  2. Following the editor's written instructions on the journal's expectations of the submitted work

  3. Determining scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it and giving decisions based on rating

  4. Provide a clear and levelheaded reason for giving decisions based on common ethics

  5. Personal & Financial conflicts should be alerted

  6. Stave off direct contact with the author without editor's permission.

 

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

  1. Confidentiality: - Reviews and reviewer comments should be held confidentially. manuscripts or copies of the process shouldn't be retained with the reviewers after the process is commenced

  2. Constructive Evaluation: - Decisions and judgment should be constructive that provides legible insight to the author without any controversy or inefficiencies with the review process

  3. Competence: -Reviewer with passable expertise will serve the purpose to complete the review. People lacking adequate expertise should feel responsible and can decline the review.

  4. Impartiality and Integrity: - Reviewer decision should solely depend on scientific merit, relevance to the subject, scope of the journal rather on financial, racial, ethnic origin etc… of the authors.

  5. Timeliness and Responsiveness: - Reviewer should be responsible to complete the review within the relevant time and should take all necessary steps to fulfill the limitations of the journal.