The peer –review has the indispensable mechanism with which the quality of the research paper is judged.
1. Reviewers are obliged to his/her manuscripts with lot of respect towards them.
2. Authors should be informed clearly about review process.
3. The editor should ensure that peer-review should be masked in both directions as such the identity of the author is removed to protect the confidentiality of the author.
4. Editor has to give strict instructions to the reviewers that process should be prompt, undiscriminatory and highly professional.
5. Editor has to maintain the confidentiality of the research papers which are undergoing the research process and should leave the comments and criticism.
6. Editor has the prime responsibility to send the reviewers’ comments to the author(s)’promptly.
7. Providing the truthful, fair, and constructive and informative critique for the submitted work.
8. Reviewers should give a truthful assessment which includes strengths and weakness of the authors.
9. Reviewers who agree to review the process must complete the reviews with in specific time.
10. The material that is submitted for peer-review should be treated in confidence.
11. The reviewers should give unbiased feedback in timely manner.
12. Papers under the review process should not be shared or discussed with any other person except other reviewers.
13. Every reviewer should respect the intellectuality of the each author.
14. The comments that are provided by the reviewers should be based on the facts from research paper but not from personal or professional bias.
15. The reviewers should not misinterpret the facts from the from original research paper.
Kindly consider the following questions when review a research paper:
1. Does the title reflect the content of the submitted paper?
2. Does the object give a clear view of the topic chosen?
3. Does the paper speak clearly, strongly and convincingly?
4. Is the paper well structured?
5. Is there any irrelevant information?
6. Is the paper well structured with all necessary allusions?
7. Is the paper well supported with sufficient bibliographic?
8. Is the conclusion supported by the content?