.:: Reviewer Guidelines | Nessa Publishers ::.


Peer review is the framework for assessing the quality, legitimacy, and importance of academic exploration. These also known as refereeing, is a collaborative process its allows manuscripts submitted to a journal to be evaluated and commented upon by independent experts within the same field of research. The evaluation and critique generated from these procedure provides authors with feedback to improve their work and, critically, allows the editor to assess the paper’s suitability for publication in the journal.

• To maintain awareness of the current research emerging within your subject area.

• Help to draw attention to any gaps in references and make the author aware of any additional literature that may provide useful comparison, or clarification of an approach.

• recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct

• read the manuscript, reviewer are, ethics and policy statements, supplemental data files) and journal instructions thoroughly, getting back to the journal if anything is clear and requesting any missing or incomplete items they need to carry out a full review

• make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.

• Criticism ought to be displayed impartially and hostile comments are not satisfactory.

• The official choice regards to change, acknowledgment, or dismissal of an original copy rests exclusively with the proofreader.

• Reviewer ought to observe important segments of the examination paper and confirm that it fits inside the extent of the journal.

• One ought to contact the editorial manager if there is any issue with respect to time or irreconcilable circumstances, in light of that the analyst may amplify the due date or scratch off the review task.

Provide detailed comments :

• These should be suitable for transmission to the authors: use the comment to the author as an opportunity to see the clarification if any unclear points and for further elaboration.

• Confirm whether you feel the subject of the paper sufficiently interesting to the justify its length; if you recommend shortening, it is useful to the author if you can indicate specific areas where you think that shortening is required.

• ensure their comments and recommendations for the editor are with their report for the authors most feedback should be put in the report for the authors..

• The official choice in regards to change, acknowledgment, or dismissal of an original copy rests exclusively with the proofreader.

• You may not spare the duplicate of your review and you can submit it to the manager who is the chief.