Instructions for Performing Review

Pre-Review Considerations

• Expertise: Ensure that you have the appropriate level of expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. If you are not an expert in the area, consider declining the invitation to review or recommending a colleague who is more qualified.
• Conflict of Interest: Check for any potential conflicts of interest, such as having collaborated with the authors or having a personal relationship with them. If you have any conflicts of interest, disclose them to the editor immediately.
• Time: Consider whether you have the time to complete a thorough review within the given timeframe. If you cannot meet the deadline, notify the editor as soon as possible.
• Ethical Considerations: Make sure you understand the ethical considerations involved in the review process, such as confidentiality and data sharing.
• Guidelines: Familiarize yourself with the reviewer guidelines provided by the Journal, including the evaluation criteria, feedback format, and submission requirements.
• Record Keeping: Keep a record of the manuscript you are reviewing, including the submission date, the manuscript title, and the Journal name. This will help you avoid reviewing the same manuscript multiple times.
• Communication: If you have any questions or concerns about the review process or the manuscript, communicate them clearly and professionally to the editor.

Ethical and Conflict of Interest Considerations

• Conflicts of Interest (COI): Reviewers must disclose any potential COIs that could affect their impartiality. This includes personal, professional, or financial relationships with authors, funding agencies, or institutions associated with the manuscript. If a COI is identified, reviewers should inform the editor immediately and consider declining the assignment. If a potential COI arises during the review, reviewers must promptly inform the editor and withdraw from the process. This helps preserve the integrity and fairness of the review process.
• General Ethical Guidelines: Reviewers are expected to adhere to high ethical standards, including confidentiality, impartiality, and respect for intellectual property. All information in the manuscript, including data and findings, should be treated as confidential and not shared with unauthorized individuals. Reviewers should also refrain from using any content from the manuscript in their work until it is published.
• Objective Evaluation: Reviews should be based on the manuscript’s content and quality, not on the reviewer’s personal opinions or biases. If you cannot provide an impartial assessment due to a personal or professional bias, please decline the assignment.

Confidentiality Guidelines

     Confidentiality is essential in the peer review process. Reviewers must:

• Maintain strict confidentiality of all manuscript details, including the abstract, content, and any associated data.
• Avoid discussing the manuscript’s content or their assessment with anyone outside the peer review process.
• Not reveal their identity to the authors in their comments or through metadata in Word or PDF files.
  If consultation with a colleague is needed, reviewers should first seek permission from the editor or contact the Journal at [email protected]. The colleague’s name(s) should be noted in the “Comments to the Editor” section.

Manage Reviews

• Accessing Reviews: Ensure that you log in to the appropriate reviewing system or platform of ijmpe’s Manuscript Engine platform to access and manage all your reviews.
• Article- and Journal-Specific Instructions: Review each ijmpe’s specific instructions for formatting, length, and content. These guidelines will help ensure that your review meets the standards of the Journal and is relevant to the manuscript under review.
• Sex and Gender Reporting: Be aware of the importance of sex and gender reporting in research and make sure to address any issues related to these topics in your review.
• Research Data and Visualizations: Evaluate the research data and visualizations presented in the manuscript, and ensure that they are clear, accurate, and relevant to the research question.
• Overview: Provide an overall summary of your review, including your recommendation and any specific concerns or issues that you have identified. Make sure to provide specific examples and evidence to support your assessment.

Organizing Your Review

• Your Recommendation: Recommend whether the manuscript should be accepted, rejected, or revised for resubmission. This recommendation should be based on your assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, as well as your evaluation of its relevance and contribution to the field.
• The Final Decision: Recognize that your recommendation is just one factor that the editor will consider in making the final decision about the manuscript. The editor will also consider other reviewers’ assessments, the ijmpe’s standards and guidelines, and any potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, it is important to provide a clear and thorough review but also to recognize that the final decision is not solely within your control.

Post-Review Considerations

• Respond to Feedback: Be prepared to respond to any feedback or questions from the editor or the author. This may include requests for clarification or additional information.
• Maintain Confidentiality: Remember to maintain the confidentiality of the review process and avoid sharing details about the manuscript or your review.
• Check for Updates: Check the status of the manuscript regularly to see if a decision has been made by the editor. You may also receive notifications about the status of the manuscript through the review platform or the editorial management system.
• Review Revisions: If the manuscript is revised and resubmitted, you may be asked to review the revised version. Make sure to provide a thorough review of any changes made and evaluate whether they adequately address the issues identified in your initial review.

Who are Reviewers?

What Makes You A Reviewer?

Reviewers evaluate ijmpe’s article submissions based on the Journal’s requirements, predefined criteria, and the quality, completeness, and accuracy of the research presented. They provide feedback on the paper, make suggestions for improvements, and advise the editor on whether to accept, reject, or request changes to the article. The final decision is always made by the editor, but reviewers play an important role in determining the outcome.

Eligibility

Reviewers should meet the following criteria:

• Research background qualified to review the manuscript, usually a PhD or MD degree is necessary,
• Be an active researcher, expertise should be suitable for the manuscript,
• Possess official and recognized affiliation (University or Research Institute) relevant experience of 1-7 years and have a proven publication record in the field of the submitted paper,
• Not hold any conflicts of interest with the authors, including if they have published together in the last five years.

Responsibilities

• Have the necessary expertise to judge the scientific quality of the manuscript,
• Prior to commencing a review, it is essential to declare any conflicts of interest.
• If unable to accept a review invitation, declining promptly is crucial. Additionally, if possible, suggesting alternative reviewers who meet the required criteria is advisable.
• Upon acceptance of a review invitation, commit to submitting the review report within the stipulated timeframe. If an extension or withdrawal is necessary due to changing circumstances, promptly inform the Journal Manager.
• Evaluate each submitted manuscript impartially. Prepare a thorough review report, offering an overall impression of the manuscript and specific comments on various sections.
• Should you suspect any form of misconduct, promptly notify the editors for further investigation.
• Treat the assigned manuscripts with confidentiality, refraining from discussing their content with unauthorized individuals.
• When considering co-reviewing with a colleague, seek prior permission from the editorial office. Subsequently, when submitting the review report, ensure that both names are included as co-reviewers.

Why you should become our Reviewer?

• Contribute to the Academic Community: Reviewing allows you to contribute to the academic community and share your knowledge and expertise.
• Improve the Quality of Research: Through your review, you can help improve the quality of research by identifying errors, inconsistencies, or areas that require further clarification.
• Help Shape the Field: By providing feedback on manuscripts, you can help shape the field by identifying emerging trends, areas of significance, or gaps in knowledge.
• Expand Your Own Knowledge: Reviewing manuscripts can also be a way to expand your own knowledge and stay up-to-date with the latest research in your field.
• Build Your Reputation: Being an active reviewer can also help build your reputation as an expert in your field and increase your visibility within the academic community.

Benefits

As a valued member of ijmpe’s’s reviewer community, you will enjoy numerous benefits that will enhance your professional growth and academic standing. Your expertise and knowledge in your field make you an ideal candidate, and we believe that you will greatly benefit from the numerous advantages of being a member of our board. Here are some compelling advantages you can expect:

• Participate in Annual Reviewers Challenges: As a member of ijmpe’s Reviewer Board, you will have the opportunity to participate in annual Reviewers Challenges. These challenges are designed to recognize and reward the outstanding performance of our reviewers. By participating, you can showcase your expertise, contribute to scholarly research, and stand a chance to win awards for being the best-performing and leading contributor reviewer.
• Recognition and Awards: We firmly believe in acknowledging the valuable contributions of our reviewers. By joining ijmpe’s Reviewer Board, you position yourself for recognition and awards based on your exceptional reviewing efforts. These awards not only serve as a testament to your commitment to academic excellence but also enhance your professional reputation within the research community.
• Free Access to the Annual Reviewer Conference: ijmpe’s Reviewer Board members enjoy exclusive benefits, including complimentary access to our Annual Reviewer Conference. This conference is a premier gathering of renowned scholars, researchers, and industry experts. Attending this event provides a platform for networking, knowledge exchange, and collaboration, opening doors to new opportunities and collaborations.
• Access to Exclusive Reviewers Zone on APID: Upon joining the Reviewer Board, you gain access to the exclusive Reviewers Zone on our Academic Publishing and Information Database (APID). This dedicated zone provides a wealth of resources, including tools, guidelines, and best practices, to further enhance your reviewing skills. Additionally, you can download your contribution certificates and access discount vouchers and coupons for our publications and related events.
• Networking Opportunities with Global Reviewers: As a member of ijmpe’s Reviewer Board, you will have the chance to connect and network with esteemed reviewers from around the world. Engaging with this diverse community fosters global collaborations, broadens your professional network, and allows for the exchange of ideas and best practices.
• Track Your Contributions and Publications on APID: APID offers a comprehensive platform for tracking your contributions and publications as a reviewer. You can easily monitor and showcase your reviewing history, demonstrating your expertise and commitment to the research community. This feature enhances your professional profile and increases visibility within your field.
• Access to Live and Recorded Reviewers Training Sessions by Experts: ijmpe’s Reviewer Board members have privileged access to live and recorded training sessions conducted by renowned experts in their respective fields. These training sessions are tailored to enhance your reviewing skills, update you on the latest research methodologies, and provide valuable insights into the scholarly publishing process.

By joining ijmpe’s’s Reviewer Board, you become an integral part of our mission to advance knowledge and maintain the highest standards of academic publishing. Your contributions as a reviewer will shape the quality and impact of scholarly research. We highly value your expertise, and we are confident that your participation in our Reviewer Board will be mutually beneficial. If you are interested in accepting our invitation, please let us know, and we will provide you with further details on how to proceed.

• Registration on APID

• • • Navigate to the APID website using your preferred web browser.
    • Locate and click on the “Register” or “Sign Up” button, usually found on the top right corner of the homepage.
    • Enter your email address and request an OTP, which will be sent to your email. If you don’t receive the OTP, click on resend.
    • Enter the OTP you receive to verify your account. After verification, click continue to set your password.

• Accessing the Advisory Board Application

• • • After verification, you’ll be directed to update your basic details, click on next, and you will be asked if you wish to apply for Editorial Board/Advisory Board, click on yes, and click Update Profile/Claim APID. You will be redirected to the application form

• Completing the Application Form

• • • Fill out the form in its entirety. Ensure that all sections are completed accurately.

• Submission

• • • Once satisfied with your application, click on the “Submit” or “Apply” button.
    • A confirmation mail will be sent to your registered mail address, indicating that your application has been received.

• Awaiting Response

• • • After submission, the advisory board’s selection committee will review applications.
    • Once the review process is complete, you’ll be notified of the decision.

• Additional Tips

• • Ensure your provided contact information is accurate to facilitate easy communication.
  • Regularly check your email, including the spam/junk folder, for any communications regarding your application.
  • Familiarize yourself with the board’s current members, goals, and initiatives to be well-prepared in case of an interview.

Peer Review Process

The peer review process involves the evaluation of scholarly work by experts in the same field or related fields to ensure that it meets the standards of quality and accuracy before it is published. It typically includes the submission of a manuscript to a Journal, an initial screening by the editor, and a detailed evaluation by at least two independent reviewers. The reviewers provide feedback on the manuscript, which the editor uses to make a decision on whether to accept or reject it. The peer review process helps ensure the highest standards of quality and accuracy in published research.

Know More about Peer-Review Policy

Ethical and General Considerations

We uphold the stringent standards outlined by COPE, OASPA, WAME, and DOAJ for maintaining the ethics and transparency of scholarly publishing. In line with this, we kindly request that reviewers who engage in the review process also uphold the ethical principles. We encourage reviewers to consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers when evaluating manuscripts submitted to our ijmpe’s.

• Timely Decline and Recommend Alternatives: If unable to accept a review invitation, declining promptly is crucial. Additionally, if possible, suggesting alternative reviewers who meet the required criteria is advisable.
• Adherence to Review Timeline: Upon acceptance of a review invitation, commit to submitting the review report within the stipulated timeframe. If an extension or withdrawal is necessary due to changing circumstances, promptly inform the editorial office.
• Objective and Comprehensive Review: Evaluate each submitted manuscript impartially. Prepare a thorough review report, offering an overall impression of the manuscript and specific comments on various sections.
• Reporting Suspected Misconduct: Should you suspect any form of misconduct, promptly notify the editors for further investigation.
• Maintain Confidentiality: Treat the assigned manuscripts with confidentiality, refraining from discussing their content with unauthorized individuals.
• Co-Reviewing Protocol: When considering co-reviewing with a colleague, seek prior permission from the editorial office. Subsequently, when submitting the review report, ensure that both names are included as co-reviewers.

Reviewer Assessment Criteria

For a thorough peer review, reviewers are requested to complete an online review report form encompassing the crucial aspects to be assessed during manuscript evaluation. The form includes the following key points:

• Title and Abstract: Are they clear, relevant, and concise?
• Introduction: Does it effectively provide context, highlight the research gap and state objectives?
• Literature Review: Is it thorough, and relevant, and does it contribute to field knowledge?
• Methodology: Is the research design appropriate and well-described? Are data collection and analysis methods sound?
• Results: Are the results presented, accurately, and supported by visuals where necessary?
• Discussion: Does it interpret results effectively, connect to research questions, and compare to existing literature?
• Conclusions: Do conclusions align with objectives, and are they supported by evidence?
• References: Are references accurate, complete, and correctly formatted?
• Clarity and Structure: Is the manuscript well-organized, coherent, and readable?
• Originality and Contribution: Is the manuscript novel, and significant, and does it contribute to the field?
• Ethical Considerations: Are there any ethical concerns, plagiarism, or potential COIs?
• Language and Writing: Is the language clear, grammatically correct, and consistent with the ijmpe style?

Reviewers should provide constructive feedback to improve the manuscript and include any confidential comments for the editor if necessary.

Situations When Reviewers Should Decline to Review a Submission

• If they have a personal or financial conflict of interest involving the authors, funding agencies, or affiliated institutions.
• If they lack the necessary expertise to evaluate the manuscript.
• If they cannot meet the review deadline.If they have previously reviewed the manuscript for another Journal or publication.
• If they have any bias that could compromise an impartial review.
• If a personal or professional relationship with the editor could influence the review.

Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest in the “Confidential” section of the review form, which will be taken into account by the editor. Reviewers should also disclose whether they have had any prior discussions about the manuscript with the authors.

Timeliness and Communication

• Timeliness:
  Reviewers should ensure they can meet the review deadline before accepting an assignment. If an unexpected delay occurs, they must notify the editor as soon as possible.
• Communication:
  Any questions, concerns, or requests for clarification should be directed to the editor or ijmpe’s staff. This ensures a smooth review process and clear communication between the reviewer and the editorial team.

Reviewer’s Support

For assistance in joining as a reviewer, contact us at [email protected] or submit your query via our online portal.

Query Portal