For Reviewers

The peer reviewer is responsible for critically reading and evaluating a manuscript in their specialty field, and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their submission. It is appropriate for the Peer Reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, ways to improve the strength and quality of the work, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.

Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:

Does the article you are being asked to review match your expertise?

If you receive a manuscript that covers a topic that does not sufficiently match your area of expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Please feel free to recommend alternate reviewer.

Do you have time to review the paper?

Finished reviews of an article should be completed within two weeks. If you do not think you can complete the review within this time frame, please let the editor know and if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer. If you have agreed to review a paper but will no longer be able to finish the work before the deadline, please contact the editor as soon as possible.

Are there any potential conflicts of interests?

While conflicts of interest will not disqualify you from reviewing the manuscript, it is important to disclose all conflicts of interest to the editors before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interests, please do not hesitate to contact the receiving editorial office.

Scope - Is the article in line with the aims and scope of the journal?

MAINTAIN CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE SUBMITTED ARTICLE/PAPER

Being a reviewer of Journals Era, you need to take the responsibility of maintaining confidentiality of ideas that have been presented in the papers which you review. Focus your evaluation on merits and demerits of the paper and physiological significance of the findings in your confidential remarks to the Editor. Never reveal the assigned paper's results or videos/images or any of the supplementary material to non-reviewers.

BE ANONYMOUS

The identity of the reviewers should never be revealed out to the authors at any time either during the process of review or after its publication.

• Organization and Clarity

• Title: Does it clearly describe the article?

• Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?

Introduction: Does it describe what the author had a specific end goal, which was to realize precisely, and obviously state the situation being explored? Normally, the introduction may as well compress relevant research to provide context, and illustrate what different authors findings, if any, are being challenged or amplified. It might as well describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es) and the general experimental design or technique.

Method: Does the author precisely explain how the information was gathered? Is the outline suitable for addressing the question posed? Is there sufficient qualified data display for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? Provided that the methods are new, is it true that they are illustrated in detail? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what sort of information was recorded? Has the writer been precise in describing measurements?

Results: This is where the author(s) might as well illustrate in expressions what he/she/they revealed in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will recognize if the suitable analysis has been done. Are the statistics right? In the event that you are not agreeable with statistics, please prompt the editor when you submit your report. Understanding of outcomes may as well not be incorporated in this section.

Conclusion/Discussion: Are the cases in this segment backed by the outcomes, do they appear sensible? Have the authors has shown how the results identify with wants and to earlier research? Does the conclusion clearly explains how the research showed it impact in moving the scientific knowledge forward?

Tables, Figures, Images: Are they appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand?

Language: Provided that an article is inadequately composed because of grammatical errors, while it might make it more challenging to grasp the science, you don't have to correct the English. You should bring this to the attention of the editor, however. At last, when considering the entire article, do the figures and tables advise the reader, are they a vital part of the story? Do the figures depict the information correctly?

Earlier Research: Provided that the article expands past research does it refer that work suitably? Are there any significant works that have been violated? Are the references correct?

ETHICAL ISSUES:

• The reviewer should give an honest and exact analysis of the research. The main role of the reviewers is to analyze the merits and the demerits and to provide necessary suggestions in order to increase the quality of the work.

• The reviewer of paper should not review the manuscript that is co-authored by himself, or a member of his/her institution or to someone to whom he is related.

• After receiving the paper for any further assistance or clarifications you need to contact only the editor and the confidentiality of the paper has to be maintained. You must never ask anyone to review a portion of paper without editor's permission and also must never contact the author of the paper directly.

• If the conduct of the reviewer seems to be mischievous then the manuscript will be assigned to second reviewer.

• The reviewer should accept the manuscripts which fall into his/her area of expertise. Anyhow the editors will assign it to concerned reviewers yet sometimes a mistake may happen. This is because in order to maintain high standards of the review process.

• The reviewer can also inform the editor regarding suspected duplicate publication, plagiarism, or any ethical concerns about the use of animals or humans in the research that has be done by author.

• Reject (explain your reasoning in your report)

• Accept without revision

• Revise – either major or minor (explain the revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether you would be happy to review the revised article). If you are recommending a revision, you must furnish the author with a clear, sound explanation of why this is necessary.

1. Reviewer must not be biased and transparent in his decision.

2. Reviewers should morally abide to provide the review comments within the stipulated time and be active enough in responding to the queries raised by the editor if any.

3. Reviewer’s decision should solely depend on scientific merit, relevance to the subject, scope of the journal rather than financial, racial, ethnic origin etc., of the authors.

4. Final decision in accepting/ rejecting of the manuscript is solely decided by Chief-Editor of the journal.

5. A reviewer should not use any kind of abusive language while commenting on an article. Judgment of each article should be done without any bias and personal interest by the assigned reviewer.

6. For any conflicts with manuscript/ authors/ editors he should contact editorial office.