Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

What is peer review process?

Peer review is the evaluation of work done by one or more people with similar competences as the producers of the work (peers). It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia, scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs, e.g., medical peer review. From a publisher’s perspective, peer review functions as a filter for content, directing better quality articles to better quality journals and so creating journal brands.

Why is peer review important?

Peer reviewers’ comments and recommendations is an essential guide to inform the editor’s decision on a manuscript. Peer review ensures that manuscripts receive unbiased critique and expert feedback, allowing authors to improve their manuscript and therefore high quality scientific research and reviews to be published. It also helps the readers to trust the scientific integrity of the article and to make informed decisions where peer reviewer comments are available.

The review process

All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial members. To save time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from specialists in the field).

Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal review, typically to two or three reviewers, but sometimes more if special advice is needed (for example on statistics or a particular technique). The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers' advice, from among several possibilities:

  • Accept, with or without editorial revisions.
  • Invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached.
  • Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission.

Timing

Nature Research journals are committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the scientific community as a whole. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the number of days agreed. If reviewers anticipate a longer delay than previously expected, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternatives.

Type of peer review

  1. Single-blind: Authors’ identities are known to reviewers, but reviewers are anonymous.
  2. Double-blind: Both authors’ and reviewers’ identities are kept secret from each other.

Peer review process in IP Innovative Publication Private Limited

  1. A group of Scientists, Doctor, Medical students complete a study and write it up in the form of an article. They submit it to a journal for publication.
  2. The article once submitted will undergo a thorough plagiarism check, after that journal's editors send the article to several other Scientists, Doctor (i.e. Reviewer of that journal) who work in the same field.
  3. Those reviewers provide feedback on the article and tell the editor whether or not they think the study is of high enough quality to be published.
  4. The authors may then revise their article and resubmit it for consideration.
  5. Only articles that meet good scientific standards (e.g., acknowledge and build upon other work in the field, rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, back up claims with evidence, etc.) are accepted for publication.
  6. If an article finally meets editorial and peer standards it gets published in a journal.

Writing the Report

Peer reviewers should assess the major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as well as look at the statistical power of the study if relevant.

In the first part of their report, peer reviewers should write a short summary describing their assessment of the manuscript. They should then provide general comments to be addressed, followed by any specific comments they may have. Comments should be numbered so that authors can easily refer to them in their point-by-point response to referee comments. All requested major revisions should be clearly outlined. Minor revisions should also be mentioned where peer reviewers feel these will improve the manuscript’s clarity and purpose.

If any form of misconduct is suspected such as plagiarism, undeclared conflicts of interest, falsification of results etc., these should be intimated directly in confidence to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal.

Peer reviewers must ensure that they answer the following questions in their report:

  • Follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to, the way this should be organized.
  • Does the English grammar, punctuation or spelling need to be corrected?
  • Does the paper fit the aim and scope of the journal? (Each journal has an "Aim and Scope" link on the upper right of its home page).
  • Do the title and abstract cover the main aspects of the work?
  • Are the results novel? Does the study provide an advance in the field?
  • Did the study gain ethical approval appropriate to the country in which the research was performed if human or animal subjects were involved and is it stated in the manuscript?
  • Are the methods clear and replicable?
  • Is the statistical analysis appropriate to the study design?
  • Are the controls appropriate for the study design?
  • Do all the results presented match the methods described?
  • Is the data clearly and appropriately presented using clear language?
  • Did the authors make the underlying data available to the readers?
  • Do the conclusions correlate to the results found?
  • Does the paper raise any ethical concerns?
  • Are images appropriate for the article? If there are any concerns about duplication or manipulation in images, please raise potential issues by email or in your report.

Peer reviewers should provide the Editor-in-Chief with a recommendation regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication. They can recommend that the manuscript should be accepted for publication with revisions (“revise and resubmit”), accepted without revisions, or rejected.




49

Total No of Journals

8081

Publish Papers

31857

Manuscript Submission

957168

Articles Downloaded

2041576

Articles
Views