Clerisy peer review policy
Clerisy journals employ the peer review process in order to ensure the scientific quality of the manuscript and insure the validity of individual works submitted for publication.
As peer review is the major quality maintenance measure for any academic journal, Clerisy publishers carries the strict and absolute liability on peer review process. The process aims to provide authors with constructive feedback from relevant experts which they can use to make improvements to their work, thus ensuring it is of the highest standard possible.
Reviewers only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper
In case of decline the invitation to review:
Please specify the reason for declining.
If possible, please suggest a colleague or friend who may be able to review the manuscript. If appropriate, the editor will send an invitation to review to that individual. Reviewer not authorized to transfer the manuscript to any individual.
A good peer-review process is timely, supportive, constructive, thoughtful, and fair. Reviewer should provide an honest, critical assessment of the research. Reviews should not be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.
Since peer review is confidential, must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. Please do not show it to anyone or discuss it, except to solicit assistance with a technical point. Reviewer should not attempt to contact the author.
Manuscripts should not be given to research scholars (or) students for educational (or) research purposes.
Providing overall opinion and general observations of the article is primary and should summarize the specific strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Based on reviewer summary, editor decides whether or not to publish the article.
Reviewer should give an explanation for and support the judgement so that both editors and authors are able to understand the review summary.
As a reviewer, if you suspect plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns, you can raise your suspicions with the editor and provide as much detail as possible.
Conflicting interest:In case you experience you might have difficulty writing an objective evaluation please return the paper immediately, without reviewing.
In case you’re prior or relationship with the authors or an author's institution is probably construed as creating a conflict of interest, however no exact conflict exists, please mention about this issue in your confidential comments to the editor.
When reviewing the article content, consider the following aspects
Considering the significance and potential impact of a paper is high or low?
Does the paper fit the scope of the journal?
Title: Does it clearly describe the article?
Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
Methods: Does the author precisely explain how the information was gathered? Is the methodology presented in the manuscript and any analysis provided both accurate and properly conducted?
Results: Are the results presented both statistically and substantively meaningful? Have the authors stayed within the bounds of the results their data will support?
Discussion and conclusion: Do the authors present here a concise and accurate summary of their major findings? Does their interpretation fairly represent the data as presented earlier in the article? Does the conclusion clearly explain how the research showed it impact in moving the scientific knowledge forward?
Tables and figures: do the figures and tables advise the reader, are they a vital part of the story? Do the figures depict the information correctly?
Language: If the manuscript has numerous grammatical mistakes and flaws that inhibit the ability of a reader to understand the arguments, reviewer may recommend rejection without writing a detailed review. Reviewer not supposed to correct the language.
Depending on reviewer commentary and recommendations, manuscripts may be sent back to authors for revision. Reviewer may recommend following 4 key suggestions based on article assessed quality.
- Minor revision
- Major revision
Reviews must be complete within 14 days.
When authors make revisions to their article in response to reviewer comments, they are asked to submit a list of changes and any comments for transmission to the reviewers. The revised version is usually returned to the original reviewer if possible, who is then asked to affirm whether the revisions have been carried out satisfactorily.