Peer review

What is Peer Review?

Peer review is the process by which a group of individuals (peers) with similar skill levels and competencies evaluate each other's work. It is the system used to evaluate a manuscript's quality prior to publication. To assist editors in deciding whether an article should be published in their journal, independent scholars in the pertinent fields of study evaluate submitted manuscripts for originality, validity, and significance.

 

How does it work?

When a manuscript is submitted to a journal, it is assessed to see if it meets the criteria for submission. It involves checking of paper as per the Journal’s guidelines, and if it does, the editorial team will select the paper for the peer-review process. Then it is assigned to potential peer reviewers within the same field of research to review the manuscript, and they suggest recommendations and modifications. The detailed, valuable feedback from reviewers helps in improving the quality of research and makes it suitable for publication.

 

Double blind peer review

The journal follows double blind peer review, which means both are anonymous to each other. Neither author knows the reviewer, nor does the reviewer, and it helps in maintaining the quality and integrity of the work. The double-blind peer review process aims to ensure that research papers are evaluated based on their content and merit rather than the reputation or background of the authors.

 

On being asked to review, please consider the following points:

Does the manuscript you are being asked to review truly match your expertise? From the article information, initially check whether the article falls under your expertise or not. The managing editor or editorial office that has approached you may not know your work intimately and may only be aware of your work in a broader context. Only accept an invitation in case you are competent to review the article and have expertise in the field.

 

Do you have time to review the manuscript? Reviewing a manuscript can be quite time-consuming. The time taken to review can vary from field to field, but a manuscript will take, on average, 4-6 hours to review properly. Will you have sufficient time before the deadline stipulated in the invitation to conduct a thorough review? In case you are unable to conduct the review, let the managing editor/editorial assistant know immediately if possible, and you have the option to choose the time frame, so choose as per your availability.

 

Are there any potential conflicts of interest? A conflict of interest will not necessarily eliminate you from reviewing a manuscript, but full disclosure to the editor will allow them to make an informed decision. For example, a reviewer's personal, professional, or financial interests could potentially influence their judgment and objectivity. These should all be listed when responding to the editor’s invitation for review.

 

Conducting review

Reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially; the manuscript you have been asked to review should not be disclosed to a third party. You should not attempt to contact the author.

Be aware that when you submit your review that any recommendations you make will contribute to the final decision made by the editor.

Evaluate the manuscript according to the following:

Peer Review Checklist

S. No	Particulars	Details Description
1.	Title	Does the title reflect the main subject/hypothesis of the manuscript? Is the title complete?
2.	Abstract	Does the abstract summarize and reflect the work described in the manuscript?
3.	Keywords	Do the keywords reflect the focus of the manuscript?
4.	Background/Introduction	Does the manuscript adequately describe the background, present status, and significance of the study? Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately and clearly state the problem being investigated? It should summarize relevant research to provide context and explain what findings of others, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, hypothesis (es), and general experimental design or method.
5.	Methods	Does the manuscript describe methods (e.g., experiments, data analysis, surveys, clinical trials, etc.) in adequate detail? Is statistical analysis appropriate? Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the manuscript identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded? The authors of the paper should provide enough information about the usage of AI technology in the methods section to allow for replication of the methodology mentioning the version, tool, and any pertinent prompts.
6.	Results	Are the research objectives achieved by the experiments used in this study? Does the manuscript meet the requirements of Biostatistics? It should be laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section. Do the figures and tables inform the reader? Are they an important part of the manuscript? Do the Illustrations describe the data accurately? Are they consistent, e.g., bars in charts are the same width, the scales on the axis are logical?
7.	Discussion	Does the manuscript interpret the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points concisely, clearly, and logically? Are the findings and their applicability /relevance to the literature stated in a clear and definite manner? Is the discussion accurate, and does it discuss the paper’s scientific significance and/or relevance to clinical practice sufficiently? Are the claims in this section supported by the results? Do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories?
8.	Conclusion	Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
9.	Illustrations and tables	Are the figures, diagrams, and tables sufficient, are of good quality, and appropriately illustrative of the paper contents? Do figures require labelling with arrows, asterisks, etc., and better legends?
10.	References	Does the manuscript cite appropriately the latest, important, and authoritative references in the introduction and discussion sections? It is unacceptable to cite AI-generated content as the main source.
11.	Quality of manuscript organization and presentation	Is the manuscript well, concisely, and coherently organized and presented? Is the style, language, and grammar accurate and appropriate?
12.	Research methods and reporting	Is the article of interest to members of the education research community?
13	Ethics statements	For all manuscripts, author(s) must submit the related formal ethics documents that were approved by their local ethical review committee. Did the manuscript meet the requirements of ethics?

Language

In case an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, which may make it more difficult to understand science, you do not need to correct the English. You may wish to bring it to the attention of the editors and also give a minor revision to the author.

 

Previous research

If the article builds upon previous research, does it reference that work appropriately? Are there any important works that have been omitted? Are the references accurate?

 

Ethical Issues

Plagiarism:  If you believe a manuscript is a significant copy of another work or if it is presented without providing as thorough a citation as feasible, then notify the editor. You can also request a plagiarism report for the paper. 

Fraud: Although it can be challenging to identify a motivated fraudster, you should speak with the editor if you believe that the data in a manuscript are not accurate.

Other ethical concerns: Has confidentiality been maintained in medical research? It is also important to identify any instances in which the established standards for the ethical treatment of human subjects have been broken.

 

Here we have mentioned some less important considerations for a reviewer:

1. Minor Spellings: It can be ignored, as in copyediting, it will be checked again before publishing.
2. Grammar Issues: Minor grammatical errors can be ignored, and the focus should be more on scientific parameters.

 

Reference Style: One should not focus more on reference style; anyway, it will also be checked before publishing as per the Journal format at the time of copyediting.

 

Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

The journal follows the ethical guidelines as mentioned by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines has published Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. We ensure that peer review is fair, unbiased, and timely. Discussion to accept or reject a manuscript for publication is based on the manuscript’s importance, originality, and clarity.

 

Originality/Evaluate the manuscript according to the following:

Is the manuscript sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the manuscript adhere to the journal’s standards? Is the research question an important one? In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might be helpful to think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in: Is it in the top 25% of papers in this field? You might wish to do a quick literature search using tools such as www.cochranelibrary.com/

This is to see if there are any reviews of the area. If the research has been covered previously, pass on references to those works to the editor.

Join as a reviewer

Review of manuscripts is essential to the publication process, and you will learn a lot about scientific publishing by serving as a reviewer. We cordially invite you to join our team of journal reviewers. You can simply join as a reviewer through MPRP (Manuscript Peer Review Process). First-time user needs to register first, after email verification, can join as a reviewer by completing the profile with all required details.

Reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially; the manuscript you have been asked to review should not be disclosed to a third party. You should not attempt to contact the author. Be aware that when you submit your review that any recommendations you make will contribute to the final decision by the editor.

 

Comments for the editor

Once the evaluation of the manuscript completed, the next step is to write up a report. In case it seems to might miss the deadline, notify the editor.

• Download the manuscript in Word format from the link provided at manuscript submission portal (Manuscript Peer-Review Process called MPRP), once logged in as a Reviewer.
• Provide your report online by checking various boxes, entering comments in ‘Comments for editor’ and Comments for authors’. Provide a quick summary of the manuscript in ‘Comments to the editor’. It serves the dual purpose of reminding the editor of the details of the report and also reassuring the author and editor that you understood the manuscript. You may make changes/corrections in the Word document of the manuscript and send it to the editor by using the browse file button.
• The report should contain the key elements of your review, addressing the points outlined in the preceding section (preferably identifying page and line number). Comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details, including your name.
• Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are better able to understand the basis of the comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or reflect data.
• When you make a recommendation regarding a manuscript, it is worth considering the categories an editor will likely use for classifying the article.

1. Publishable without revision (No Revision)
2. Publishable after a few revisions (Minor Revision)
3. Publishable only after applying my corrections
4. HUGE Revision must be done (Major revision)
5. REJECT

In cases of 2 to 4, identify what revision is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to see/ review the revised article.

 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidelines

Peer reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the quality and credibility of research. Thus, it is essential to approach this responsibility with transparency and care. One can visit here for  more details.  

How to submit a review report

The review report can be directly submitted to the editor/editorial office through the MPRP Portal. These things should be considered before submitting the review comments:

1. Comments should be understandable for the author and the Journal Editors also.
2. Always check the checklist and bear in mind does the paper is justifying all questions or not?
3. Must mention strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript in a polite and well-organized manner
4. It should be clear and concise, and you must check the clarity of comments before submitting

 

Article peer review process

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

 

Editor's Feedback: “Reviewers should remember that they are representing the readers of the journal. Will the readers of this particular journal find this informative and useful?”

 

1. Submission of Manuscript: The corresponding or submitting author submits the manuscript to the journal via  manuscript submission portal – Manuscript Peer-Review Process called MPRP, or sometimes, in a few exceptional cases journal may accept submission by email.
2. Editorial office scrutiny: The journal checks the manuscript composition and arrangement against the journal's author guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and style. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.
3. Initial evaluation by Editors: The Editor checks that the manuscript is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. In case, suitable and significant for the journal, assigned to reviewers and if it is not, the manuscript may be revised and will be considered for resubmission after modifications.
4. Invitation to Reviewers: The concerned editor sends invitations to review the manuscript to appropriate reviewers from the same field and with similar expertise. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if required, until the required number of acceptances is obtained – usually this is second, but there is some variation between journals.
5. Response to Invitations: Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They accept or decline accordingly. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.
6. Review is conducted: The reviewer schedules many readings of the work. On the first reading, an initial impression of the work is made. If significant issues are discovered at this point, the reviewer may feel free to reject the article without further effort after providing potential justifications and explanations; if not, they will read the document multiple times and take notes in order to compile a thorough, point-by-point analysis. Following submission, the review is either recommended for acceptance or rejection by the journal, or it may be re-examined with a request for correction or highlighting, whether major or minor.
7. Recognition of the reviewer’s work: After reviewing a manuscript, the reviewer receives a thank-you email from MPRP (Editorial Office) on the journal peer-review process. Reviewers may send their thanks mail with Web of Science to receive verified recognition for their work. Forward your “thank you contribution” mail to reviews@webofscience.com to add your review record to your WOS account. The certificate of reviewing can also be obtained simply from the MRRP Reviewers panel after the final decision on the paper.
8. Editor evaluates the reviews: The editor considers all the returned reviews before reaching to a final decision. If the review differs significantly, the editor may invite an additional reviewer to obtain an extra opinion before making a decision, or suggest revisions and modifications.
9. Decision is communicated: The editor sends a decision email to the author, including any relevant reviewer comments. Whether the comments are anonymous or not will depend on the type of peer review that the journal operates.
10. Acceptance confirmation: If accepted, the manuscript is sent to production. In case the manuscript is rejected, the author should be informed with a proper justification of the rejection. Or in some instances, the handling editor includes constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article and suggest to submit again to make the whole process again with new reviewers. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter to inform them of the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested, this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.
11. Post Acceptance: Once the manuscript is accepted, it is moved to the production stage, where copyediting, proofreading, and quality checks occur to make the article suitable for publishing, and a Galley proof is also shared with the author to avoid any mistakes in the final version (Print + Online) of the paper. Upon the completion of all steps, as per the decision of the Editor-in-Chief (Final decision holder) of the journal, it is published online and in print version as well.