SEG reviewer's Guidelines

SEG reviewer's Guidelines

Peer review is an important and responsible part in the publication process. It ensures to maintain high quality standards for publishing article. Peer review is a collaborative process between experts that allows independent experts in the same field of research to evaluate and comment on manuscript submissions. Their respectful, constructive, and honest feedback often improves research and helps propel it forward and it will be helpful to the editor to assess the paper’s suitability for publication.This crucial process decides to accept or reject a manuscript for publication based on the manuscript’s importance, originality and clarity and its relevance to the scope of the journal.

SEG follows double blind, rigorous peer review process with ethical principles which ensure the process is fair, unbiased and timely manner. To produce legitimate and high-quality research content in published articles, we encourage genuine, transparent and professional reviewers for the manuscript evaluation process.SEG follows double blind peer review process where the identity of the reviewers and the authors aren’t disclosed throughout the process.

Reviewers should follow the below guidelines for productive output.

Before proceeding with evaluation make sure that the manuscript is within the area of expertise.Incase of assigned a manuscript subject, does not sufficiently match with your area of expertise, must be informed to the editorial office and don’t proceed with review process. Suggest alternative reviewers as per convenience and availability.

In evaluating process, reviewer should take consideration of Content Quality and Originality, Quality of Presentation,Policy Research, technical quality, Contribution to the fieldand observational analyses, Language corrections.

The review report should be accurate, objective, constructive and unambiguous.Comments should be backed by facts and constructive arguments that providing respectful and honest feedback with regards to the content of the manuscript. It can have the strengths and weaknesses of the article. Reviewers should avoid using hostile, derogatory and accusatory comments anywhere in the process.

Reviewers should maintain the confidentiality in the review process and assess the manuscript independently and finish the review report form without revealing identity either in the comments or in metadata. Should maintain Manuscript materials and data confidentially.

Reviews should be honest,fair and objective. Reviewers should not be influenced by the origin of the manuscript, Religious, political beliefs or cultural viewpoint or institutional affiliation of the author, Genderdiscrimination, race, ethnicity or citizenry of the author. Should dedicate the appropriate time to conduct a critical review of the manuscript.

Reviews should be mentioned in the review form by indicating with appropriate recommendation such as accept, reject, revision and resubmit options along with review comments.

Any of the recommendations should have an explanation and reasons of choosing particular recommendation.

In case of indicating acceptance, don't just give a short, cursory remark such as great, accept, worthy to publish etc.. Mention the Significance of the research work or any identification of hypotheses and speculations and alsojustification of conclusions and results. Express clear views with supporting arguments and references.

In case of indicating major or minor revision, state specific changes which need to be made. The author can then reply to each point in turn. So be clear with the comments to the author.Support all general comments either positive or negative with specific evidence.

Recommend the rejection when the manuscript has serious flaws, scientific misconduct. Take consideration of whole paper context before deciding to reject. Include clear opinions about the strengths, weaknesses and relevance of the manuscript. Address unqualified aspects and as well positive aspects of the paper with detailed advice on presentation. This helps to improve the work of developing researchers.Remember to provide constructive criticism, even recommending rejection. Because review comments should be helpful to editor to take a decision on the manuscript.

Reviewers can declare any potential or perceived competing interests or any specific comments to the editor at comments to the editor section in review form.

Benefits of Reviewers

  • Reviewing is often an unseen and unrewarded task. But Scientific Eminence Group strive to recognize the efforts of reviewers and appreciations.
  • Scientific Eminence Group process reviewer’s manuscript with less article processing charges.
  • SEG provides personalized reviewer certificate every year.
  • Including reviewer list names, certificates in journal list and Publons will impact positively on career growth.
  • Being as a reviewer for other researcher will provide insight knowledge on research and will help to improve own writing.
  • It provides an opportunity to become a part of scientific publication and build a network in the research community for productive collaborations.
  • SEG Felicitate journal’s outstanding reviewer award every year.
  • Full waiver on SEG scientific conferences.
  • To became a reviewer of SEG Journals send your c.v to