Contribution to Editorial Decisions:
Peer review is an important component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Peer review helps the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communication with the author he may also assist the author in improving the paper. Apart from the described and specific ethics-related duties, reviewers are expected usually to treat authors and their work as they would like to be treated themselves and to observe good reviewing etiquette. Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research article or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should communicate to the editor and refuse to participate in the review process.
Any research article received for review must be dealt with as a confidential document. Reviewers must not share or communicate with anyone the review report or information about the paper or contact the authors directly without permission from the editor. Discussion with colleagues or co-reviewing exercises may be held, but reviewers should first communicate this with the editor in order to ensure confidentiality. The reviewers cannot use unpublished materials presented in a submitted research article in their own research without the prior written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept in secret and must not be used for personal gains.
Alertness to Ethical Issues:
A reviewer’s duty is to be vigilant regarding any potential ethical issues in the paper and the same should be brought to the attention of the editor. Potential ethical issues may include any similarity in the disclosed material or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge. Any statement or any observation, derivation, or argument that had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
Standards of Objectivity & Competing Interests:
Reviewers should be objective and unbiased in the review process. Personal criticism of the author is altogether inappropriate. Referees should express their opinions clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers should counsel the Editor before agreeing to review a paper where they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. If a reviewer recommends that an author includes citations to the reviewer’s work, this must be based on genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing the reviewer’s citation count or enhancing the visibility of their work.
The conditions to join IJMSIR.
This job will be part-time.
This job will be on an honorary basis.
The candidate must have sound knowledge of spoken English.
The candidate must have command of internet usage because this job will be performed through the internet.
The candidates who are willing to join our journals’ editorial board must determine to maintain the quality of the journals by reviewing them impartially. They must complete the review process within the given time. After completing the review process they will have to send the review report immediately to the editor. We will include the name and affiliation of the reviewers in the list of the editorial board members on the journal’s hard copy and also on its webpage.
- The candidate must have a Doctoral/Master's degree in the specific subject related to the journal he/she is going to apply.
- Ph.D. students can also apply.
- Professors, Associate Professors, and Assistant professors of the university are also welcome. (Preferred)
- Must have waste knowledge in the field.
- The candidate should be impartial in the review process.
- He must be aware of the value of the review process.
- He must be interested and an expert in the specific field.
How to apply for the reviewer