Reviewers | Scientific Info | Herald Scholarly Open Access

Reviewers

Reviewers have a vital role in science and in scholarly publishing. For more than 300 years, and scholars and researchers have depended upon peer review to approve research work, captivate different experts in the support of submitted work, and expands the networking possibilities within particular expert communities.

Despite the fact that in recent years the peer review process has pulled in some criticism, it remains the main broadly acknowledged technique for research approval and a foundation of scientific publishing process.

Herald Scholarly Open Access, like most scientific publishing companies, depends on effective peer review processes to maintain not just the quality and legitimacy of distinct articles but also the overall integrity of the journals we publish.

By surveying the quality and legitimacy of another author's work, inside the same area of aptitude, reviewers:

  • Uphold the integrity of the journal by identifying invalid research, and in addition serving to administer the quality norms of the journal.
  • Fulfill a sense of responsibility to the scientific community and their arena of focus.
  • Establish associations with reputable journals and may likewise expand their opportunities to be welcomed to join an Editorial Board.
  • Reciprocate the same graciousness demonstrated to them when different reviewers review their own particular wrote research work.
  • Establish their expertise in and knowledge of the particular field.
  • Increase their reputation and exposure in the concerned field.
  • To always be up to date and "in the loop" with respect to their discipline's literature.
  • Have access to the exact most recent research and discoveries in the field prior to colleagues.
  • Learn about their discipline and as well as exercise the critical thinking aptitudes fundamental to the act of science.

Guidelines

  • All papers submitted to Herald Scholarly Open Access are liable to peer review.
  • Peer reviewers should give an objective critical assessment of the paper in the broadest terms practicable. Reviewers requirement to make a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief or Editor by choosing a rank between 1-9, where 1 is elegantly composed and 9 is flawed to the point that rejection is recommended.
  • You might as well indicate if the paper requires its English grammar, punctuation or spelling to be revised.
  • Your report must hold a recommendation and a description of your purposes behind that recommendation. Assuming that you accept the paper necessities progressions to be made before it is worthy, please make suggestions on the most proficient method to enhance the paper. Similarly assuming that you feel that a paper is bad enough and has no genuine prospects of being enhanced sufficiently to be published you might as well prescribe dismissal.
  • Consideration should be provided if the paper is suitable for the journal it is submitted to. Each journal's aims and scope is accessible on the home page.

Rules & Regulations for Peer Review

The Golden Rules are the most fundamental and vital general standards of peer review represent a synopsis of significant data that has appeared throughout the Manuscript Processing and they form the foundation for accomplishing great practice in peer review.

  • Editors are responsible for guaranteeing the nature of their journals and that what is accounted for is ethical, faultless and significant to their readership.
  • Peer review must include evaluation by external reviewers.
  • The submission of a manuscript and all the details related with it must be kept confidential by the editorial office and all the individuals included in the peer-review process.
  • Reviewers advise and make recommendations and editors make the decisions.
  • Editors-in-chief must have full editorial independence. Editorial decisions must be dependent upon the merits of the work submitted and its suitability for the journal.
    1. Everyone included in the peer-review process should dependably act according with the most noteworthy ethical standards.
    2. Information received during the submission and peer-review process should not be used by anyone involved for their own or others advantage or to disadvantage or discredit others.
    3. No conflict of interest or partiality must be permitted to influence the submission of a manuscript, its review, or the decision on if it ought to be published.
    4. Suspected or alleged misconduct must not be disregarded.
    5. Editors of journals have an obligation to keep the scholarly record free from fake or incorrect data.