Reviewers
Reviewers play a crucial role in publication of a manuscript. Recommendations made by the reviewers are shared with Editors who will then make a final publication decision based on these recommendations and their own evaluation. Reviewers are expected to follow a certain set of ethical guidelines in order to referee a work in an unbiased and hassle-free manner.
Ethics
- Maintain the
confidentiality of the research work and findings
- Disclose review comments
only to the concerned editor of the journal
- Provide an objective review
on the manuscript
- Should provide consent
on whether or not they want their review comments to be published along with
the manuscript
- Disclose any conflict of
interest prior to accepting an invitation to referee the manuscript
Before accepting an invitation to review, the reviewers
should keep in mind the following points:
Area of expertise: Does the manuscript fall under your area of expertise?
Availability: Accept only if you are available to review the manuscript
within the speculated timeframe. A substantial evaluation usually takes a lot
of time, thus it becomes essential that the reviewers should carefully analyze
their schedule to make sure that they can provide an objective review.
Guidelines for Reviewers
The reviewers of Rivera Publications play a critical role in
publishing quality research. The reviewers are encouraged to go through the
Reviewer’s guidelines before submitting the review should they choose to review
an article. Following are some of the guidelines for reviewers:
Reviewer Best Practices:
- If invited to review, the reviewer should make
sure that the manuscript falls under their area of expertise to ensure a fair
assessment of the article
- Contact the Editorial Office if the timeline
given to submit the review is not enough to thoroughly review the article. The
timelines are flexible and extensions can be granted to accommodate the
schedule of the reviewers
- State the potential conflict of interest (if
any) by contacting the Editorial Office
- Should give a fair review of the manuscript and
do not get influenced by the origin of the manuscript or author’s ethnicity,
nationality, religion, or any other factors
- Follow the Reviewers Checklists to provide an
extensive and substantial review of the manuscript
- Provide constructive comments on the paper. If
you are rejecting a paper, please provide valid explanation for rejection, like
flawed methodology, ethical misconduct, or any other issue
- Try to deliver the review within the speculated
deadlines
- Maintain confidentiality of the material under
review and do not disclose any information or details during or after the
review process
- Try to re-review the papers if requested by the
journal editors to ensure that the review comments are properly addressed
Reviewer Checklist
Reviewers can use the below checklist
to evaluate the manuscript on different grounds, besides their usual review.
All the checks are not mandatory; reviewers are free to use it in any form in
their review.
Note: Please remove all information
from your review based on which you could be identified, for example your name,
affiliation, properties, etc.
General:
- Is the topic of the paper under the
scope of the journal?
- Does the paper conform to the
guidelines to authors of the concerned journal?
- Is the topic of research worthy of
investigation?
- Does the work add anything new to the
existing literature in the field?
Presentation:
- Does the title correctly reflect the
content of the paper?
- Has the paper been logically
constructed?
- Is the paper readable and easy to
understand?
- Is the paper grammatically correct and
free from typos/language errors?
Abstract:
- Does the abstract present an accurate
synopsis of the paper?
- Is the abstract in accordance with the
journal guidelines?
Introduction and Aims:
- Is the introduction appropriate to the
paper’s subject?
- Is the introduction too long or too
short?
- Does the introduction review the
literature correctly and adequately?
- Is the aim of the study clearly stated?
Methods:
- Is the design of the study consistent
with the aim of the study?
- Is the sample size sufficient to
represent the population?
- Is the methodology correctly and
adequately described?
- Are the statistical tests used
correctly and clearly described?
- Are there any ethical objections on the
study? If yes, has the approval been taken from concerned ethics committee?
Results:
- Are the results presented in a clear manner
(with the use of tables and graphs)?
- Are the statistical tests used
appropriate?
- Are the results statistically
significant?
- Is the sample size too small to justify
and generalize the findings?
Discussion:
- Does the discussion appropriately
explain the results?
- Does the discussion appropriately
compare and discuss the results of the present study with other published
results?
Conclusions:
- Do the conclusions accurately infer the
results of the study?
- Are the conclusion clearly mentioned?
- Are there any limitations of the study,
which might have influenced the study outcomes?
Acknowledgements:
- Is there any source of funding?
- Are the sources of funding
appropriately acknowledged?
- Is there any statement on how each
author should’ve or must’ve contributed to the paper?
- Are there any conflicts of interests?
References:
- Are the references as per the format
given in author guidelines of the journal?
- Are the references accurate, up to
date, and relevant?
Review comments:
Any comments specific to the
manuscript or any section of manuscript can be included in comments.
Recommendations:
- Accept
- Accept pending minor revision
- Major revision
- Reject