Reviewer Guidelines

  • We ensure that the peer-review process is double blinded so that it shall remain fair and unbiased.
  • We are very grateful that we express our sincere gratitude to all our reviewers who put their valuable effort and time in evaluating the manuscripts and support us during this journey to convert the preliminary manuscript into a suitable standard publication. It enhances the presentation quality and scientific merit for a better comprehension with a wide range of followers.
  • Based on the author’s suggestion and the bibliographical knowledge, the potential and active reviewers are identified.
  • The evaluations and the comments of the reviewers plays an important role in taking the final decision upon the manuscripts in consultation with the editors on considering multiple contributing factors such that the relevance and impact of the research work. For such condition we adhere to cope with the guidelines and the reviewers can decline to comment if they find any conflict of interest with the manuscript.
  • It is important to understand that the reviewers must be in contact with the assigned editor for sensitive issues such as conflict of interest, plagiarism and published data. The manuscript having contents with recommendations and critical evaluations needs to be submitted to both the editor and the author.
  • Since the unpublished manuscripts are classified on our natural state, so the process of review and recommendation remains confidential. The review needs to be very objective in nature and mainly to focus on improving the scientific merit of the manuscript.
  • Review comments with partial criticism are strictly prohibited. It shall contain supporting references and maintain the sufficient clarity while pointing out the strength, weakness, relevance and impact of the research work as well as the originality of the presentation.
  • Finally it is necessary to mention the extent of suitability of the publication of manuscript. In addition to the authors, the editor can forward the review comments to other potential reviewers. Unpublished manuscript shall not be cited by the reviewer.

The following points represent a standard review process ensuring conformation.

  1. The title & content shall be within the scope of the journal.
  2. Providing relevant information for a wider network of readers within the journal preview.
  3. All the sections such as title, abstract, key words, methods and conclusions within the manuscript are consistent with the objective of the paper. The included controls are rational and adequate in the experimental work.
  4. Without distractions and deviations, the writing is easy to comprehend.
  5. The methodology can be repeated by another researcher since it is clear and easy.
  6. The methodology is appropriate and applicable when it has consent of ethical approvals. The statistical methods and analytical are appropriate which is relevant to the study.
  7. The comments with suggestions can be made for expanding, considering, merging or deleting the content with regard to the length of the manuscript.

Reviewer’s Role

The quality of the manuscript is enhanced by the peer-reviewing process. It provides a clean service to the authors and publishers which improves the quality of the literature in the specific discipline by volunteering their time and expert analysis.

  • Providing unbiased assessment of the manuscript with respect to time while evaluating the scientific merit of the article.
  • Giving their opinion on clarity, conciseness, relevance & significance of the manuscript.
  • Suggesting the various ways of improving the content presentation, originality & scope and expected to provide constructive and informative critique of the manuscript.
  • To make sure that the methods are described with adequate details with an appropriate study design.
  • To make sure that the citations are included in the manuscript of the previous relevant work uphold confidentially, impartiality, integrity and timelines while keeping in mind that the manuscript shall be avoided of personal comments or criticism during the review.
  • Estimation of manuscript rating & recommendation either to accept, reject, suggest, major revision, minor revision or to conclude with no recommendation.
  • When there is a possibility of conflict of interest shall be notified and cease the review.
Track your Manuscript
Enter Correct Manuscript Reference Number:
Get Details
Top Editors

Dr. Nanjappaiah H. M.
Assoc. Prof. Dept. of Pharmacology BLDEA’s SSM College of Pharmacy & Research Centre Vijayapur – 586103, Karnataka, India

Dr. Shek Saleem Babu
English Language and Literature, English Language Teaching, and Poetry, IIIT, RGUKT, Nuzvid, Krishna Dt. AP, India

Dinh Tran Ngoc Huy
Bank for Investment and Development of VietNam (BIDV)

Dr. Abd El-Aleem Saad Soliman Desoky
Professor Assistant of Agricultural Zoology, Plant Protection Department Faculty of Agriculture, Sohag University - Egypt

Prof. Dr. Elsayed Ahmed Ahmed Elnashar, Ph.D.
Full-Professor of Textiles &Apparel, Faculty of Specific Education, Kaferelsheikh, University, Egypt
Top Reviewers

Dr. Shabnum Musaddiq
Assistant Professor, Department of Microbiology, Narayana Medical College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India, 524003

Dr. Biman Kumar Panigrahi
Associate professor, Seemanta Instt. of Pharma. Scs., Jharpokharia, Odisha, 757086, India

Efanga, Udeme Okon
Finance, Accounting and Economics, niversity of Calabar, Nigeria

Aransi Waliyi Olayemi
Department of Adult Education, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
Why Us
Open Access
Rapid publication
Lifetime hosting
Free indexing service
Free promotion service
More citations
Search engine friendly
Copyright © 2020 Inlight Publisher (IARCON INTERATIONAL LLP). All Rights Reserved.