REVIEWER GUIDELINES

Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:

  1. Does the article match your area of expertise? Please only accept the article if you believe you can provide a high-quality review.
  2. Do you have a potential conflict of interest? When you respond, tell the editor this.
  3. Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work; before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.  

How to peer review for IJSER

The reviewer report should comprehensively critique the submission and consist of much more than a few brief sentences. IJSER does not mandate a specific format for reports, but here is a suggested format:

  1. Summary
  2. Major issues
  3. Minor issues

We encourage reviewers to help authors improve their manuscripts. The report should provide authors with constructive analysis, especially when recommending revisions. Reviewers have the option to add specific comments, which they do not want the authors to see, to the confidential comments sent to the editor in chief. Depending on the discipline, reviewers may need to scrutinize certain fundamental elements. Are the research questions valid?

  1. Are the research questions valid?
  2. Are the methods and study design appropriate for answering the research question?
  3. Do the experiments have appropriate controls?
  4. Are the figures and tables clear, and do they accurately represent the results?
  5. Have the authors and others discussed earlier research and compared the results to the current findings?
  6. Are there any unsuitable citations, such as ones that do not support the assertion, or excessive references to the authors' own articles?
  7. Do the results support the conclusions?
  8. Are the research's limitations acknowledged?
  9. Is the abstract an accurate summary of the research and results, without spin?
  10. Is the language clear and understandable?

 

To help authors receive timely reviews, reviewer reports should be submitted via the manuscript tracking system on or before the agreed-upon deadline. If reviewers are unable to meet the deadline, they should reach out to IJSER to arrange an alternative date. 

We encourage reviewers to concentrate their reports on objectively critiquing the scientific aspects of the submission, such as the methodology's soundness and the results' ability to support the conclusions. We also welcome comments on the work's novelty and potential impact. We ask reviewers to recommend one of the following actions at the end of their review:

  1. Accepted
  2. Minor Revision
  3. Major Revision
  4. Reject
  5. Unable to review 

Confidentiality 

Manuscripts under peer review should be strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscripts or discuss their content with anyone outside the peer review process. Reviewers may consult with colleagues from their research group upon request, ensuring the confidentiality of the manuscript remains intact. Reviewers should first contact IJSER or the editor-in-chief and note the name of the colleague(s) in the "Comments to the Editor" section of their report. 

Conflicts of interest 

Reviewers have the right to decline a submission when they:

  1. I have a financial interest in the subject matter of the work.
  2. We have previously discussed the manuscript with the authors.
  3. Feel unable to be objective.