Responsibility of Reviewers:
- Maintaining the integrity of the magazine by identifying research is invalid and help maintain the quality standards of the journal and also to maintain the confidentiality of the review process : no share, discuss with third parties or disclose information from the review paper
- Establish relationships with prestigious magazines and can also increase your chances of being invited to participate in an Editorial Board
- Alerting the editor of any potential personal or financial conflict of interest and decreased check if there is a possibility of conflict
- Comply with the instructions written on the expectations editor of the magazine about the scope, content and quality of the review
- Provide a thoughtful , fair, constructive and informative review of the papers , which may include additional material provided by the sponsor magazine
- Abstain from direct author contact
- Avoiding Personal comments and criticism
- Establish your expertise and knowledge in the field and Having access to the latest research and discoveries in the field before colleagues
- Learn about your discipline and the exercise of critical thinking skills essential for the practice of science.
- Maintaining the timeline and responsiveness within the deadline
Consideration while Refereeing:
- Does the title suits with the content?
Does the abstract describe the content accurately?
- Are the objectives clearly stated?
Is the argument expressed clearly, strongly and convincingly?
- Is the article well structured?
Are there any irrelevant sections?
- Is the field adequately covered? Are there any relevant areas that should have been included?
Is the article well-supported with bibliographic and other authoritative sources?
- Is the information, or the interpretation of the information, new?
Is the information factually correct?
- Are the conclusions supported by the discussion?
Are the supporting illustrations/graphs/other media well chosen? Do they add impact to the article?
- Infringing the confidentiality of the review
- Using the ideas or text of a manuscript under review
- Making use of confidential information to achieve personal or professional benefit
Misrepresenting facts in a review and u
nreasonably delay the review process
- Employing hatchet job and using personal comments and criticism
Critic’s are expected to be:
- Appropriate with IJMTES submission and refereeing system
Promoting journal within professional networks
- Review two to five articles in twelve month period
Acknowledge promptly to requests for reviews [within five days]
- Complete and return expeditiously reviews [four weeks]
Respect confidentiality at all times
- Declare any conflict of interest [evaluation are conducted “blind”, but occasionally authors or reviewers to identify research projects. If this happens, we ask reviewers to contact the editor and reassigned the review].
Notify the editor of any change in email address
- Notify the editor if for any reason it is not possible to carry out a review of the rights of
Notify the editor if the author or co-author of an article submitted for consideration