Reviewers Guide-Pearl Research Journals
Pearl Pearl Research Journals  - Guide to Reviewers

An essential aspect of publication of quality articles is a thorough examination of manuscripts by other researchers, they read the article critically and then either suggest that it is accepted, rejected, or most frequently revised and improved before it is published.

Peer review is a vital aspect of scholarly publication, and one of the major foundations of the scientific process beacuse:

  1. Plays the role of forming an archive of knowledge.
  2. It plays a key role in validating the quality of research.
When asked to review

Ensure that the article you are being asked to review truly matches your expertise and that you have time to review the paper.

Review process

All manuscripts must be submitted using the format outlined in the Instructions to Authors. The instructions are available on-line at http://pearlresearchjournals.org/auth_instr.html 

The journal editorial office policy requires each manuscript be reviewed by individuals who are highly competent and recognized in the particular field of the submitted manuscript. Once potential reviewers agree to read a manuscript they are given a two-week time-frame to complete the review.

When the reviews are completed, a decision is made to either accept the paper or give the authors the opportunity to revise according to reviewers’ suggestions or to reject the paper based on the reviewers’ criticisms and the editors’ opinion of the paper. In some instances it is necessary to seek the opinion of other reviewers if further comment is necessary to make a final decision. When an editor has completed his decision on a manuscript, the decision letter and reviewers’ comments are sent to the author. Any questions or concerns regarding the editorial decision on any manuscript must be made directly to the Journal editorial office. Revised manuscripts are evaluated to determine if the author(s) have adequately addressed and answered the critique of the reviewers and editors. Depending upon this evaluation, manuscripts may be accepted, returned for further revision, or rejected. If a paper is accepted, the paper is immediately sent to the publication office and slotted for the next available issue. Pearl Research Journals tries to complete the review cycle in four weeks. This time, however, may vary depending on the amount of revision work that needs to be completed before the manuscript is acceptable.

Your duties as a reviewer is

  1. In as much as the reviewing of manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process, every scientist has an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
  2. A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified or lacks the time to judge the research reported in a manuscript should return it promptly to the editor
  3. A reviewer of a manuscript should judge objectively the quality of the manuscript and respect the intellectual independence of the authors. In no case is personal criticism appropriate.
  4. A reviewer should be sensitive even to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer's work in progress or published. If in doubt, the reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest or bias.
  5. A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript.
  6. A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor.
  7. Reviewers should explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
  8. A reviewer should be alert to failure of authors to cite relevant work by other scientists. A reviewer should call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.
  9. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author.
  10. Reviewers should respond promptly, usually within ten (10) days of receipt of a manuscript. If reviewers need more time, they contact the editor promptly so that authors can be kept informed and, if necessary, assign alternate reviewers.

 

Communicating your report to the editorstyle11"> As soon as your evaluation of the article is completed, communicate the editor.

Commentary should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks.

You should make clear your judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully comprehend the reasoning behind your comments.

It is of importance that reasons are stated for the following:

Reject (give reasons)

Accept without revision

Revise (either major or minor)

Thank you for the effort and expertise that you contribute to reviewing, without which it would be impossible to maintain the high standards of peer-reviewed journals.