•  Whats App +1 (443) 595-6199
  •  contact@mavenscience.com

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Information

Reviewer invitation is sent along with the abstract of the manuscript, so that it can be decided whether the reviewer should proceed further with the manuscript evaluation or not. It is also the time to detect any potential conflict of interest. Review of the manuscript can be done in an independent freelance style or based on a prescribed format wherein the reviewer is provided with a questionnaire including an enumeration score card for qualitative and quantitative assessment of the manuscript. The Journal follows a single blind peer-review process where the identity of the reviewer remains anonymous to the corresponding author. This method aids in objective and unbiased manuscript assessment and recommendations to the editor.

The reviewer comments play a significant role in editorial decision making process. Peer reviewers in consultation with the authors and the editors bring out the best presentation of the manuscript in terms of the scientific content, findings and interpretations. In order to attain the professional excellence, the reviewers are issues certain guidelines to be complied with.

  • Reviewers need to be prompt enough to accept reviewer invitation, report evaluation outcomes and issue overall recommendations upholding the publication timeliness.
  • Reviewers have to ensure that the manuscript they are about to review must be within the area of their expertise and they can contribute substantial time and effort for evaluation.
  • Reviewers can deny the request for manuscript assessment if they find any conflict of interest by reporting to the editor.
  • Reviewers must report to the editor, if they detect plagiarism or similarity or significant overlapping of the work with the published articles in their knowledge
  • Manuscript processing and evaluation must be kept confidential during and after peer-review. Similar to the editor responsibilities reviewers also need to maintain confidentiality of the manuscript.
  • Reviewers need to evaluate the manuscript in an objective manner and express their opinions and suggestions with scientifically sound and adequate supporting arguments.
  • Reviewers have to ensure that the observations, derivations, the interpretations and conclusions presented in the manuscript are accompanied by relevant literature and appropriate citations.
  • Reviewers in general focus on the originality of the contribution, clarity of presentation, methodological validity and the depth of research. While reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer have to consider evaluation of the research hypothesis, novelty, that the conclusions and interpretations are scientifically valid, supplementary data, adequacy and relevance of tables and figures, suitability of statistical analysis tools and techniques.
  • Reviewers have to ensure that that the author instructions, editorial policies and Journal publication formats and ethics are met.
  • Reviewers need to present both the strength and weakness of the manuscripts. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive and inclusive comments for enhancing the quality of manuscript.
  • Reviewers are expected to identify if any major flaws exists including lack of sound methodology, sampling technique, use of controls, experimental design, data analysis, insufficient data, language and such confidential comments including those on ethics need to be directly addressed to the editor while comments pertaining to the manuscript content and structure need to be forwarded to the authors.