Peer reviewed policy
The practice of peer review is to ensure that only good research paper is published. All manuscripts are following the procedure outlined below:
IJOSTHE follows a policy of screening papers before sending them for full peer review. In the initial screening of manuscripts get rejected because of plagiarism, poor grammar and outside the aims and scope of the journal. IJOSTHE complete an initial screening of a manuscript within two days. Those that meet the minimum criteria are normally passed on to at least two experts for review.
It is a process by which experts evaluate scholarly works, and its objective is to ensure a high quality of publishing.
The policy to adopt peer review is to ensure that only good quality research work is published. The purpose of the peer review process is to make sure that the manuscript is of the standard quality. All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. We select only those research papers that meet our scope for publication are sent for peer review.
Peer reviewers are ideally experts in their field. Journals usually build a pool of peer reviewers that have a good track record of producing high-quality reviews.When a Manuscript is submitted to IJOSTHE that is process to a double-blind peer-review process to fulfilling the basic requisite determined by our protocol.
IJOSTHE follows the double-blind review process. In the double-blind peer-review process, authors and reviewers do not know each other. The peer-review process helps the publishing organization to choose research work for publication, accepted with improvements/modifications, or rejected. In the peer-reviewed process, the decision to publish a manuscript is the prerogative of a journal editor or the journal’s editorial board.
In general, at first read-through reviewers will be assessing your argument’s construction, the clarity of the language, and content. They will be asking themselves the following questions:
What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?
Is the argument well-constructed and clear? Are there any factual errors or invalid arguments?
They may also consider the following:
Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
Does the paper follow a clear and organized structure?
Is the paper an appropriate length?
Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?
Upon closer readings, the reviewer will be looking for any major issues:
Are there any major flaws?
If the experimental design features prominently in the paper, is the methodology sound?
Is the research replicable, reproducible, and robust? Does it follow best practices and meet ethical standards?
Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language and manuscript structure all clear enough to accurately assess the work?
Are there any ethical issues?
The reviewer will also note minor issues that need to be corrected:
Are the correct references cited? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
Are there any factual, numerical, or unit errors? If so, what are they?
Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labeled?
Possible outcomes of peer review
The journal’s editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and uses this information to arrive at a decision. In addition to the comments received from the review, editors also base their decisions on:
The journal’s aims and audience
The state of knowledge in the field
The level of competition for acceptance and page space within the journal
IJOSTHE asks reviewers to complete their reviews within two-three weeks. This entire review process will take anywhere between 25-40 days after submission of the manuscript.