Online ISSN: 2582-6387
IP Journal of Surgery and Allied Sciences (JSAS) open access, peer-reviewed quarterly journal publishing since 2019 and is published under the Khyati Education and Research Foundation (KERF), is registered as a non-profit society (under the society registration act, 1860), Government of India with the vision of various accredited vocational courses in healthcare, education, paramedical, yoga, publication, teaching and research activity, with the aim of faster and better dissemination of knowledge, we will be publishing the article ‘Ahead more...What is Peer Review?
Peer review is the evaluation of work by a group of people (Peers) having same level of competencies and working in same field. It is the system used to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published. Independent researchers in the relevant research areas assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity, and significance to help editors determine whether a manuscript should be published in their journal.
How does it work?
When a manuscript is submitted to a journal, it is assessed to see if it meets the criteria for submission. It involves checking of paper as per the Journal’s guidelines and if it does, the editorial team will select the paper for peer-review process. Then it is assigned to potential peer reviewers within the same field of research to review the manuscript and they suggest recommendations and modifications. The detailed valuable feedback from reviewers helps in improving the quality of research and make it suitable for publication.
Double blind peer review
The journal follows double blind peer review which means both are anonymous for each other. Neither author knows reviewer nor the reviewer does and it helps in maintaining the quality and integrity of the work. The double-blind peer review process aims to ensure that research papers are evaluated based on their content and merit rather than the reputation or background of the authors.
On being asked to review, please consider the following points:
Does the manuscript you are being asked to review truly match your expertise? From article information, first see whether the article is falling under your expertise or not. The managing editor or editorial office who has approached you may not know your work intimately and may only be aware of your work in a broader context. Only accept an invitation if you are competent to review the article and have expertise in the field.
Do you have time to review the manuscript? Reviewing a manuscript can be quite time-consuming. The time taken to review can vary from field to field, but a manuscript will take on an average, 4-6 hours to review properly. Will you have sufficient time before the deadline stipulated in the invitation to conduct a thorough review? If you cannot conduct the review, let the managing editor/editorial assistant know immediately if possible, and you have option to choose the time frame, so choose as per your availability.
Are there any potential conflicts of interest? A conflict of interest will not necessarily eliminate you from reviewing a manuscript, but full disclosure to the editor will allow them to make an informed decision. For example, reviewer's personal, professional, or financial interests could potentially influence their judgment and objectivity. These should all be listed when responding to the editor’s invitation for review.
Reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially; the manuscript you have been asked to review should not be disclosed to a third party. You should not attempt to contact the author.
Be aware when you submit your review that any recommendations you make will contribute to the final decision made by the editor.
Evaluate the manuscript according to the following.
S. No |
Particulars |
Details Description |
1. |
Title |
Does the title reflect the main subject/hypothesis of the manuscript? Is the title complete? |
2. |
Abstract |
Does the abstract summarize and reflect the work described in the manuscript? |
3. |
Keywords |
Do the keywords reflect the focus of the manuscript? |
4. |
Background |
Does the manuscript adequately describe the background, present status, and significance of the study? |
5. |
Methods |
Does the manuscript describe methods (e.g., experiments, data analysis, surveys, clinical trials, etc.) in adequate detail? Are the study methods are sound and appropriate? Is statistical analysis appropriate. |
6. |
Results |
Are the research objectives achieved by the experiments used in this study? Does the manuscript meet the requirements of Biostatistics? |
7. |
Discussion |
Does the manuscript interpret the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points concisely, clearly, and logically? Are the findings and their applicability /relevance to the literature stated in a clear and definite manner? Is the discussion accurate and does it discuss the paper’s scientific significance and/or relevance to clinical practice sufficiently? |
8. |
Illustrations and tables |
Are the figures, diagrams, and tables sufficient, good quality, and appropriately illustrative of the paper contents? Do figures require labeling with arrows, asterisks, etc., and better legends? |
9. |
References |
Does the manuscript cite appropriately the latest, important and authoritative references in the introduction and discussion sections?
|
10. |
Quality of manuscript organization and presentation |
Is the manuscript well, concisely, and coherently organized and presented? Is the style, language, and grammar accurate and appropriate? |
11. |
Research methods and reporting |
The article is of interest to members of the education research community?
|
12. |
Ethics statements |
For all manuscripts, author(s) must submit the related formal ethics documents that were approved by their local ethical review committee. Did the manuscript meet the requirements of ethics? |
Is the manuscript clearly laid out? all articles and the key elements present: abstract, introduction, material and methods, results, discussion, and references? Consider each element in turn:
Language
If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, while it may make it more difficult to understand science, you do not need to correct the English. You may wish to bring it to the attention of the editors and also can give minor revision to the author.
Previous research
If the article builds upon previous research does it reference that work appropriately? Are there any important works that have been omitted? Are the references accurate?
Ethical Issues
Plagiarism: If you suspect that a manuscript is a substantial copy of another work or presented without citing the previous work in as much details as possible, let the editor know (also can ask for plagiarism report of the paper).
Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in a manuscript to be untrue, discuss it with the editor
Other ethical concerns: If the research is medical in nature, has confidentiality been maintained? If there has been a violation of accepted norms of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects these should also be identified.
Here we have mentioned some less important considerations for a reviewer:
Reference Style: Should not focus more on reference style, anyway it also will be checked before publishing as per Journal format at the time of copyediting.
The journal follows the ethical guidelines as mentioned by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines has published Ethical Guideline for Peer Reviewers. We ensure that peer review is fair, unbiased, and timely. Discussion to accept or reject a manuscript for publication is based on the manuscript’s importance, originality, and clarity.
Is the manuscript sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the manuscript adhere to the journal’s standards? Is the research question an important one? In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might be helpful to think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in: Is it in the top 25% of papers in this field? You might wish to do a quick literature search using tools such as
This is to see if there are any reviews of the area. If the research been covered previously, pass on references of those works to the editor.
Review of manuscripts is essential to the publication process, and you will learn a lot about scientific publishing by serving as a reviewer. We cordially invite you to join our team of journal reviewers. You can simply join as a reviewer by MPRP (Manuscript Peer Review Process). First time user needs to register first, after email verification can join as a reviewer by completing the profile with all required details.
Reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially; the manuscript you have been asked to review should not be disclosed to a third party. You should not attempt to contact the author. Be aware when you submit your review that any recommendations you make will contribute to the final decision by the editor.
Evaluate the manuscript according to the following:
Is the manuscript sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the manuscript adhere to the journal’s standards? Is the research question an important one? In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might be helpful to think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in: Is it in the top 25% of papers in this field?
This is to see if there are any reviews of the area. If the research been covered previously, pass on references of those works to the editor.
Once you have completed your evaluation of the manuscript the next step is to write up your report. If it looks like you might miss your deadline, let the editor know.
Download the manuscript in word format from the link provided at www.mprp.in manuscript submission portal (Manuscript Peer-Review Process called MPRP) after your reviewer login.
Provide your report online by checking various boxes, entering comments in ‘Comments for editor’ and Comments for authors’. Provide a quick summary of the manuscript in ‘Comments to the editor’. It serves the dual purpose of reminding the editor of the details of the report and also reassuring the author and editor that you understood the manuscript. You may make changes/corrections in the word document of the manuscript and send it to the editor by using the browse file button.
The report should contain the key elements of your review, addressing the points outlined in the preceding section (preferably identifying page and line number). Comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including your name.
Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are better able to understand the basis of the comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or reflected by data.
When you make a recommendation regarding a manuscript, it is worth considering the categories an editor will likely use for classifying the article.
In cases of 2 to 4 clearly identify what revision is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to see/ review the revised article.
Review report can be directly submitted to the editor/editorial office by MPRP Portal. These things should be kept in mind before submitting the review comments:
Peer review process can be broadly summarized into various steps, although these steps can vary slightly between journals as mentioned in the diagram below.
Editors Feedback: “Reviewers should remember that they are representing the readers of the journal. Will the readers of this particular journal find this informative and useful?”