Reviewer

Peer review

What is Peer Review?

Peer review is the critical evaluation of a scholarly work by independent experts in the same field. It is the system used to assess the quality, validity, and significance of a manuscript before it is published. Independent researchers with relevant expertise assess submitted manuscripts for originality and scientific merit to help editors determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication in the journal.

How does it work?

When a manuscript is submitted, it first undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial team to ensure it meets the journal's submission criteria and scope. If it meets these requirements, the manuscript is sent for peer review. The editorial team assigns the manuscript to potential reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. These reviewers provide detailed feedback, including recommendations for modifications. This valuable feedback helps improve the quality of the research and ensures its suitability for publication.

Double blind peer review

The journal follows a double-blind peer-review process, which means the identities of both the author and the reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the process. This anonymity helps maintain the integrity of the review by ensuring that research is evaluated based on its content and merit rather than the reputation or background of the authors.

Guidelines for Reviewers

When you are invited to review a manuscript, please consider the following points:

Expertise: Does the manuscript align with your area of expertise? The editor who approached you may only be aware of your work in a broader context. Please review the abstract to determine if you are competent to provide a thorough assessment. Only accept an invitation if you have the necessary expertise.
Time Commitment: Reviewing a manuscript is a time-consuming task, often requiring an average of 4-6 hours for a thorough evaluation. Please consider whether you can meet the deadline provided in the invitation. If you are unable to conduct the review, please inform the editor immediately. If possible, we encourage you to suggest an alternative reviewer.
Conflicts of Interest: Are there any potential conflicts of interest that could influence your judgment? This may include personal, professional, or financial interests. A conflict of interest does not necessarily disqualify you from reviewing, but you must disclose it fully to the editor to allow them to make an informed decision.

Peer Review Checklist

S. No	Particulars	Details Description
1.	Title	Does the title accurately reflect the main subject of the manuscript?
2.	Abstract	Does the abstract correctly summarize the work described in the manuscript?
3.	Keywords	Do the keywords reflect the focus and content of the manuscript?
4.	Background	<span lang="EN-IN" aptos","sans-serif";mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;="" mso-fareast-font-family:aptos;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:="" minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"times="" new="" roman";mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;="" mso-ansi-language:en-in;mso-fareast-language:en-us;mso-bidi-language:ar-sa"="" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Poppins, sans-serif !important; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 15.6933px;">Does the introduction adequately describe the background and significance of the study?
5.	Methods	Are the methods (e.g., experiments, data analysis) described in sufficient detail? Are they sound, appropriate, and reproducible? Is the statistical analysis valid?
6.	Results	Are the results clearly presented? Do they logically follow from the methods?
7.	Discussion	Does the manuscript interpret the findings appropriately? Are the conclusions supported by the results? Is the study's significance discussed in the context of existing literature?
8.	Illustrations/tables	Are the figures and tables of good quality, necessary, and illustrative of the content? Do they have clear and informative legends?
9.	References	Does the manuscript cite relevant, current, and authoritative references?
10.	Organization	Is the manuscript well-organized, concise, and coherent? Is the language and grammar accurate?
11.	Significance	Is the research question important and of interest to the journal's readership?
12.	Ethics	Have all relevant ethical considerations (e.g., patient consent, IRB approval) been adequately addressed and documented?

Detailed Manuscript Evaluation

Manuscript Structure: Are all key elements present: Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and References?
Title: Does it clearly describe the manuscript?
Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the manuscript?
Introduction: Does it clearly state the problem being investigated and the study's objective? It should summarize relevant research to provide context and explain what findings are being challenged or extended.
Material and methods: Does the author explain how the data was collected with enough detail for the research to be replicated? Is the study design suitable for answering the research question? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described?
Results: : Are the findings presented clearly and in a logical sequence? Has the appropriate statistical analysis been conducted? (If you are not comfortable assessing the statistics, please advise the editor). This section should be free of interpretation.
Discussion and conclusion: <span lang="EN-IN" aptos","sans-serif";mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;="" mso-fareast-font-family:aptos;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:="" minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"times="" new="" roman";mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;="" mso-ansi-language:en-in;mso-fareast-language:en-us;mso-bidi-language:ar-sa"="" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Poppins, sans-serif !important; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 15.6933px;">Are the claims in this section supported by the results? Do the authors explain how the results relate to previous research? Does the conclusion clarify how the research advances scientific knowledge?

Reviewing Specific Aspects

Language: It is not the reviewer's job to copyedit a manuscript for language. If a paper is poorly written to the extent that it is difficult to understand, please bring this to the editor's attention. You may suggest a "Minor Revision" for the author to address language issues.
Previous research: Does the article appropriately reference the previous research it builds upon? Are there any important works that have been omitted? Are the citations accurate?
Ethical Issues:

Plagiarism: If you suspect that a manuscript is a substantial copy of another work, please notify the editor in detail.
Fraud: It is difficult to detect deliberate fraud, but if you have serious concerns about the authenticity of the results, please discuss them confidentially with the editor.
Other Ethical Concerns: For medical research, ensure patient confidentiality has been maintained. Any violation of accepted norms for the ethical treatment of animal or human subjects should be reported to the editor.

Prioritizing the Review: Scientific Content vs. Formatting
To ensure an efficient and effective review, we ask reviewers to prioritize the scientific merit of the manuscript over minor copyediting issues.

Minor Spelling and Grammar: Reviewers are not expected to correct minor spelling or grammatical mistakes. These will be addressed by our production team during the copyediting phase. Please only comment on language if it impedes a clear understanding of the science.
Reference Formatting: Please focus on the content and accuracy of the references (e.g., ensuring key studies are cited) rather than the specific formatting or style (e.g., punctuation, italics). The reference list will be formatted to the journal's style during production.

Conducting the Review

Your review must be conducted confidentially. The manuscript you have been asked to review should not be disclosed to any third party. You should not attempt to contact the author directly. Please be aware that your recommendations will contribute significantly to the final decision made by the editor.

Originality and Significance

Is the manuscript sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the body of knowledge?
Does the manuscript adhere to the journal’s standards? Is the research question important?
To determine originality, you may wish to conduct a literature search using tools like PubMed, Scopus, or the Cochrane Library to see if the research has been covered previously. www.cochranelibrary.com/

Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

The journal follows the ethical guidelines for peer reviewers published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guideline for Peer Reviewers. We are committed to ensuring that peer review is fair, unbiased, and timely. The decision to accept or reject a manuscript is based on the manuscript’s importance, originality, and clarity.

Join as a reviewer

Serving as a reviewer is essential to the publication process and an excellent way to contribute to the scientific community. We cordially invite you to join our team of reviewers. You can register via the MPRP (Manuscript Peer Review Process). New users must register and verify their email before completing their reviewer profile.

Submitting Your Report

Once you have completed your evaluation, please write and submit your report through the MPRP portal.

Provide a Report for the Editor and Author: The portal will have separate fields for "Comments to the Editor" and "Comments to the Author."

For the Editor: Provide a brief summary of the manuscript and your overall assessment. This is also where you should raise any confidential concerns (e.g., suspected plagiarism or fraud).
For the Author: Your comments should be courteous, constructive, and free of any personal remarks or details. Explain and support your judgments so that the author can understand the basis for your feedback. Clearly indicate any deficiencies and suggest how the manuscript could be improved.

Recommendation: When you make a recommendation, please use one of the following categories:

Accept (No Revisions)
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject

If you recommend revisions, please clearly identify what changes are required and indicate to the editor whether you would be willing to review the revised manuscript.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidelines

Peer reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the quality and credibility of research. The use of AI tools in peer review must be approached with transparency and care more...

How to submit a Review Report

Before submitting your comments via the MPRP Portal, please ensure the following:

Your comments are clear and understandable for both the author and the editors.
You have considered the key questions in the review checklist.
You have clearly outlined the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses in a polite and organized manner.
Your feedback is concise and actionable.

Article peer review process

Peer review process can be broadly summarized into various steps, although these steps can vary slightly between journals as mentioned in the diagram below.

You are absolutely correct to flag this extensive section. I will address it completely and meticulously. My sincerest apologies for the previous misses; I am committed to getting this right for you.

This document describes the entire peer-review workflow. The original text suffers from numerous grammatical errors, unprofessional phrasing, run-on sentences, and a confusing structure. I have corrected the errors and reorganized the content into a clear, logical, step-by-step process that is easy for authors and reviewers to understand.

Reviewers should remember that they represent the journal's readership. The primary question to consider is: "Will the readers of this journal find this manuscript informative, useful, and important?"

The Manuscript Workflow: A Step-by-Step Guide

Manuscript Submission
The corresponding author submits the manuscript to the journal via the Manuscript Peer-Review Process (MPRP) portal at www.mprp.in. In rare, exceptional cases, the journal may grant permission for submission by email.
Editorial Office Scrutiny
The editorial office performs an initial technical check to ensure the manuscript's composition and arrangement adhere to the journal's Author Guidelines. The scientific quality of the paper is not assessed at this stage.
Initial Evaluation by the Editor

The Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor evaluates the manuscript to determine if it is appropriate for the journal's scope and if it is sufficiently original and significant.

- If suitable: The manuscript is assigned to peer reviewers.
- If not suitable: The manuscript may be rejected outright ("desk reject") or returned to the author with a request for revision before it can be considered for peer review.
Invitation to Reviewers
The handling editor sends invitations to potential reviewers with relevant expertise in the field. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of reviewers is secured (typically two, though this may vary).
Reviewer Response
Potential reviewers evaluate the invitation based on their expertise, availability, and any potential conflicts of interest. They then accept or decline the invitation. When declining, it is helpful if they suggest alternative reviewers.
The Review is Conducted
The reviewer reads the manuscript thoroughly to form an assessment of the work. If major flaws are identified immediately, the reviewer may recommend rejection without a full point-by-point review, providing clear reasons for this decision. Otherwise, the reviewer will prepare a detailed report. The review is then submitted to the journal with a recommendation to Accept, Reject, or Revise (Major or Minor).
Editor Evaluates the Reviews
The editor considers all reviewer reports before making a final decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer to provide an extra opinion before making a decision.
Decision is Communicated
The editor sends a decision email to the author, including the anonymous reviewer comments.
Final Outcome and Next Steps
- Acceptance: If accepted, the manuscript is sent to the production team.
- Revision: The editor may request revisions based on reviewer feedback. If the paper is sent back for revision, the original reviewers may be asked to assess the new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. For minor changes, the handling editor may conduct the follow-up review.
- Rejection: If rejected, the author is informed with a clear justification for the decision. In some cases, even with a rejection, the editor may include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the work for submission elsewhere.
- At this stage, reviewers are also notified of the final decision on the manuscript they reviewed.
Post-Acceptance
After acceptance, the manuscript enters the production stage. This includes copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading. A galley proof is shared with the corresponding author for a final check to prevent errors in the published version. Once all production steps are complete, the article is scheduled for publication online and, if applicable, in print.
Recognition for Reviewer Contributions

After submitting a review, reviewers will receive a thank you email from the editorial office.

- Web of Science Recognition: To receive verified recognition for their work on Web of Science (formerly Publons), reviewers can forward this thank you email to reviews@webofscience.com to have the record added to their profile.
- Certificate: A Certificate of Reviewing can also be downloaded directly from the reviewer's panel in the MPRP portal once a final decision on the manuscript is made.