Reviewers’ Guidelines
Read Carefully...
Peer review is to ascertain the originality and improve the quality of manuscripts under review, and also, of the papers that are published. Effective peer review process is a time-consuming task but important to assure the quality of published articles. The International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research in Academics Studies and Field Practices (IJMRASFP) invest high concentration on the review process.
IJMRASFP adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines, which can be found in (http://publicationethics.org). We ensure that peer review is double blind, timely, unbiased and fair. The reviewers’ recommendations determine the acceptability of a manuscript, whether to accept, accept with minor corrections, resubmit or rejected. Our peer reviewers are a substantial part of the journal, thereby sourced from highly experienced academics and professionals with a minimum of doctorate degrees (two years post-doc) for academics and a deputy director cadre for practitioners. They are selected from divers’ expertise globally focusing on Management and Social Sciences double-blind peer review, Health, Pharmacy and Clinical Sciences double-blind peer review, Arts, Humanities and Legal double-blind peer review, Administration double-blind peer review, Architectural and Engineering double-blind peer review, Economic and Statistics double-blind peer review, Banking and Investments double-blind peer review, and Applied Sciences double-blind peer review. They are registered members of Scopus, Web of Science, ResearchGate, ELSEVIER (Clarivate), PUBMED Central, IEEE, Google Scholar and with their respective licensing councils/institutes in their home countries or international bodies. Potential reviewers are also identified through the editorial board recommendations, author suggestions, bibliographic databases and personal knowledge.
Reviews should be conducted fairly and objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Criticisms should be objective, not merely differences of opinion, and intended to help the author improve his or her paper.
Reviewers are to respect the confidentiality of the manuscript sent to them. You should not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in your own work. If you feel a colleague is more qualified than you to review the paper, do not pass the manuscript on to that person without first requesting permission to do so from the editor. Your review and your recommendation should also be considered confidential.
Reviewers’ comments to the Editor will be submitted to the Handling Editor and the Editor-in-Chief only. These should include any possible conflicts of interest. Comments and constructive criticism of the manuscript should be placed in the Comments to the Author.
Reviewers’ comments to the Author will be submitted to the Handling Editor and the Editor-in-Chief. They are also communicated to the authors and to the other anonymous reviewers of the manuscript once the editor has made a decision.
Comments should be constructive and designed to enhance the manuscript. You should consider yourself the authors’ mentor. Make your comments as complete and detailed as possible. Express your views clearly with supporting arguments and references as necessary. Include clear opinions about the strengths, weaknesses and relevance of the manuscript, its originality and its importance to the field. If you feel unqualified to address certain aspects of the manuscript, please include a statement to identify these areas. Reviwers are not allowed to copy-edit manuscripts. The following benchmarks are to be considered in the review process:
- Has the manuscript complied with the journal’s guidelines?
- Is the topic of the manuscript appropriate for the Journal?
- Do the abstract and key words accurately reflect the major concentration of the manuscript?
- Is the aim and objectives of the manuscript clearly stated?
- Can the work be repeated by other studies, considering the appropriateness of methodology and data analyses employed?
- Does the study have the appropriate ethical approvals and consents?
- Are the results supported by data, findings, conclusions, recommendations and can they be verified?
- Has the manuscript followed the American Psychological Association (APA) 7th Edition Referencing Style?
- Have you confirmed if any part of the manuscript should be deleted, merged or expanded?
- Are there any research misconduct noticed? (Kindly state them in Italics).
- Has the author plagiarised other studies?
- Is there any indication that the data presented have been manipulated?
- Has the author declared all relevant competing interests?
- Has the authors listed all funding partners?
- All other review ethics by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines, which can be found in (http://publicationethics.org).