Peer Review
About the Peer Review Process
Peer review is vital to the quality of published research. Your submitted article will be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. Feedback from the peer reviewers will contribute to the editor’s decision on whether to accept or reject your article for publication.
What is peer review and why is it important?
Peer review is the process of critically assessing manuscripts submitted to journals by external experts who are not members of the editorial staff. An overwhelming 90 percent of authors believe that peer review contributes to the enhancement of their article's quality. The primary purpose of peer review is to uphold the integrity of science by eliminating research that is either invalid or of low quality.
How does it work?
IJCISIM requires at least two qualified reviewers evaluate a submitted article before the editor can reach a decision.
The journal editor invites reviewers who are experts in your article’s subject matter to evaluate the article and provide feedback.
- Reviewers comment on a variety of points such as whether the study is well designed or if the results are too preliminary. Reviewers can help authors hone key points, identify and resolve errors, and generate new ideas.
- The reviewers’ feedback informs the editor’s decision on whether to accept or reject the article.
The most common types of peer review are single-anonymous and double-anonymous review.
- In single-anonymous, the names of the reviewers are not shared with the author but the reviewers are aware of the author’s identity.
- In double-anonymous, neither the author nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s identity.
Both models ensure that the reviewer can give an honest and impartial evaluation of the article. We use the second, double-anonymous review format.
Editors and reviewers are in search of the following attributes during the peer review process:
- Scope: Is the content suitable for this particular publication?
- Novelty: Does the content exhibit novel attributes not present in preceding publications?
- Validity: Does the study display meticulous design and execution?
- Data: Are the data accurately presented, scrutinized, and comprehended?
- Clarity: Are the concepts articulated with precision, brevity, and coherence?
- Compliance: Are all ethical and periodical prerequisites duly satisfied?
- Advancement: Does the content constitute a noteworthy progression within the domain?
