For reviewers

Peer-reviewing is a collaborative process that allows independent expert evaluation of the manuscripts submitted to a journal. Evaluation is provided by researchers and experts within the same field of research. The evaluation and critique n the peer review provides authors with feedback to improve their work and, that is most important, allows the editor to assess the paper's suitability for publication in the journal.

The journal “Scholarly Research and Information” mandates the double blind peer review method. The reviewer name can be revealed to the author only against the reviewer decision and will.

The reviewer should consult with:

In the letter with a request for peer reviewing you will find:

  • pdf-file with the text of the manuscript with all supplementary materials (if required);
  • Names and contact details of a member of the editorial board responsible for the article reviewed;
  • Deadline for the review submission.

Before agreeing to review for a journal, consider the following:

  • Do you have any conflicts of interest? If so, make the editor aware immediately.
  • Whether you can complete the review in the allotted time. If you later find yourself struggling to meet the deadline, let the editor know, so they can inform the author of any delays.

A potential reviewer can refuse to review the article (in particular, if the field of research does not fit his research profile or in case of other meaningful reasons. In this case, the reviewer can propose another candidate for reviewing the article.

Reviewer guidelines

  1. Research the journal content and guidelines for authors
  • Visit the journal homepage http://neicon.elpub.ru/jour/index to understand the journal’s published content and. This will help you in deciding whether the paper being reviewed is suitable for the journal or not.
  • Refer to the Instructions for Authors to check if the paper meets the submission criteria of the journal (e.g. length, scope, and presentation).
  1. Write the review

The main questions to consider

The main factors you should provide advice on as a reviewer are an originality, presentation, relevance, and significance of the manuscript's subject matter to the readership of the journal.

Questions to have in mind when reading the manuscript:

  • Is the submission original?
  • Does the paper fit the scope of the journal?
  • Would the paper be of interest to the readership of the journal?
  • Does the paper help to expand or further research in this subject area?
  • Estimate if potential impact of a paper is high or low?
  • Is the paper complete? Does it contain all required sections?
  • If the reference list is complete? Are all relevant references given by the author?
  • Should it be shortened and reconsidered in another form?
  • Is the submission in English clear for the reader?

Review requirements

The following issues should be evaluated in the review:

  • The originality of the paper
  • Compliance with the scope of the journal
  • The relevance of the research, its actuality,
  • The statement of the problem and its clarity;
  • Completeness and relevance of the literature review
  • Compliance of methods with the research problem;
  • The coherence of the conclusions;
  • Strong and weak points of the research and the flaws existed.
  1. Final recommendation

The review conclusion has to give one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept for publications in its current form – if the paper is suitable for publication in its current form.
  • Acceptfor publications after revision – if the paper will be ready for publication after revision of the flaws. Please list the revisions you would recommend the author makes.
  • The manuscript needs additional reviewing by another expert.
  • Reject – if the paper is not suitable for publication in this journal or if the revisions that would need to be undertaken are too fundamental for the submission to continue being considered in its current form.

In the latter case, the author could be recommended to resubmit the manuscript

  1. Comments in the review
  • These should be suitable for transmission to the authors: use the comment to the author as an opportunity for clarification on any unclear points and further elaboration.
  • If you have time, make suggestions as to how the author can improve clarity, brevity, and the overall quality of presentation.
  • Confirm whether the subject of the paper is interesting to justify and the length; of the article is relevant.
  • if you recommend shortening, it is useful to the author(s) if you can indicate specific sections and paragraphs where you think that shortening is required.
  • It is not the job of the reviewer to edit the paper for English, but it is helpful if you correct the English where the technical meaning is unclear.
  • Remember that authors will welcome constructive criticism from you.

Being critical whilst remaining sensitive to the author isn’t always easy and comments should be carefully constructed so that the author fully understands what actions they need to take to improve their paper. For example, generalized or vague statements should be avoided along with any negative comments which aren’t relevant or constructive.

  1. There is no limitation of the scope of the review.
  2. In case the manuscript is returned to the author for revision, the reviewer could be asked to review the revised version.

A note about revisions

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, who is then asked to affirm whether the revisions have been carried out satisfactorily.