Reviewer
Guidelines
Peer Review Process is the most important activity in
scientific and scholarly publishing. In absence of a significant process of
review, the quality cannot be established. Journal of Socio-Economic Review,
since its inception, always committed to the quality publishing and healthy
review management system. Journal of Socio-Economic Review believes in double
blind review process as it maintains the integrity of the
paper, author and reviewer. Following are some basic principles that Journal of
Socio-Economic Review (JSER) suggests peer reviewers to adhere to.
On receiving a request
- only
agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise
required to carry out a proper - assessment
and which they can assess in a timely manner. - respect
the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a
manuscript or its review, during - or after
the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal - not use
information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any
other person’s or - organization’s
advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others - declare
all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if
they are unsure whether - something
constitutes a relevant interest - not allow
their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the
nationality, religious or - political
beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial
considerations - be
objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile
or inflammatory and from - making
libellous or derogatory personal comments - acknowledge
that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry
out their fair share - of
reviewing and in a timely manner - provide
journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a
true representation of - their
expertise - recognize
that impersonation of another individual during the review process is
considered serious Misconduct
Respond to the invitation as soon as you can (even if it is
to decline) – a delay in your decision slows down the review process and means
more waiting for the author. If you do decline the invitation, it would be
helpful if you could provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.
Peer Review
Confidential material
If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential
documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior
authorization from the editor.
How to log in and access
your review
- Your
review will be managed via an JSER submission system through a login Id
and Password. - Don’t
allow anyone to handle review except you only. - To access
the paper and deliver your review, click on the link in the invitation
email you received which will bring you to the reviewing system.
Paper and journal specific
guidelines
- When you
start the review, make sure that you are familiar with journal-specific
guidelines. All such guidelines are available on the Journal Website. - You have
to submit your review on the journal website through the id and password
provided. - You have
to carefully read the paper first. - You might
consider spot checking major issues by choosing which section to read
first. - If you
need you can download it and read thoroughly. - Afterwards,
you fill all the sections.
Layout of The Paper
Journal of Socio-Economic Reveiw always choose to publish
research papers than simple articles or Essays. Following are some areas that
must present in the research paper:
- Significance
of the study - Methodology
of the study - Objectives
of the study - Hypotheses
of the study - Sampling
Techniques - Primary
or Secondary Research - Statistical
Techniques used - Analysis
- Consolidated
Data tables in case of a primary survey
Methodology
The following cases are considered major flaws and should be
reported:
- Unsound
methodology - Discredited
method - Missing
processes known to be influential on the area of reported research - A
conclusion drawn in contradiction to the statistical or qualitative
evidence reported in the manuscript
Research data and
presentation
- Once you
are satisfied that the layout and methodology are sufficiently robust,
examine any data in the form of figures, tables, or images. - Check the
presentation of data and result through tables and figures. - Tables
and figures must be numbered, headed by captions and with source inputs. - Critical
issues in research data, which are considered to be major flaws can be
related to insufficient data points, statistically non-significant
variations and unclear data tables.
Ethical considerations
- Researches
of other authors should be properly cited and mentioned. - Surveys
of other authors should properly be documented.
Research Misconduct
If you found any case of research misconduct, inform it to
the editors immediately.
Self-Plagiarism/text-recycling
Self-Plagiarism or text-recycling is taken as a serious issue
by Journal of Socio-Economic Reveiw. It defies the journal’s commitment of the
quality publishing. Broad guidelines for text-recycling are explained in the
author guidelines page.
Your recommendation
If any major flaws are spotted, make notes about the
manuscript. And proceed for your own perspective of the review. Again, we
remind you to be ensured that you’re familiarize with journal-specific
guidelines (available on the website). Following may be your recommendations:
- Accept: the
paper will be published in its original form. - Accept
with revisions: the paper will be published and the author are
asked to makes minor corrections and modifications mentioned. - Conditional
acceptance: the paper will be published provided the authors
make the major changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors. - Revise
and resubmit: the paper will be considered again in another
round of decision making after the authors revise its paper thoroughly. - Outright
rejection: the paper will not be published even if the
authors make major revisions.
The final decision
The editors ultimately decide whether to accept or reject the
paper. The editors will weigh all views and may call for another opinion or ask
the author for a revised paper before making a decision. Editors may also ask
the author to submit other relevant evidences if require in relation to the
submitted manuscript.
Commitment to the Reviewers
Once you have delivered your review, you might want a
certificate and appraisal for your work with Journal of Socio-Economic Reveiw.
We never leave any opportunity to support our reviewers.
Finally, we take the opportunity to thank you sincerely on
behalf of the journal, editors and author(s) for the time you have taken to
give your valuable input to the manuscript.