What is Peer Review?
The process by which original articles and grants
written by researchers are evaluated for technical and scientific
quality and correctness by one or more experts in the same field.
How the Peer Review Process Works?
CRSD's every journal application
process has its own protocols. This typically works something like this:
When a group of scientists completes a study and writes it up, hey
prepare it in the form of article and submit it to the Editor of a
journal for the publication.
The journal's editor send the submitted article for reviews to some
of the expertise who work in the same field, so can filter out the poor
quality papers, to avoid cluttering the peer review process with
substandard the research.
Peers (reviewers) provide feedback on the article.
Peers tell the editor whether or not they think the study is of high
enough quality to be published.
The remaining papers are sent to referees for further approval, usually
to two leading experts in the field.
Generally speaking, the editor's word is final, and the referees are
there on a purely consultation basis.
The authors may then revise their article and resubmit for the further
Editor accepted those articles that meet good scientific standards. If
an article does not maintain sufficiently the high standards, it may be
rejected at that point.
Peer reviewed articles provide a trusted form of research communication.
Types of Peer Review Process:
three most common types of peer review are:
Single Blind Peer Review
Double Blind Peer Review
Open Peer Review
However, other models have evolved which include key variations from the
standard approach. These include:
Transferable Peer Review
Collaborative Peer Review
Post Publication Peer Review
Single Blind Peer Review:
this type of peer review the author does not know who the reviewers are.
Means that the identity of the reviewer
is anonymous, but the author's name and affiliation are on the paper.
Like the other forms of reviewing, there are advantages and
disadvantages to single-blind.
Double Blind Peer Review:
the most common form of peer review. To facilitate this, the authors
need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does
not give away their identity. In this policy of peer review the
reviewers of the paper won't get know identity of author(s), and the
author(s) won't get to know the identity of the reviewer.
Open Peer Review:
identities of both author and reviewer are disclosed to each other at
any point during the publication process. There is a growing minority of
journals using this form of peer review but popularity among reviewers
is yet to be proven.
Transferable Peer Review:
a fairly new form of peer review which allows subject-related journals
to transfer reviewed manuscripts between each other. Typically, an
author submits their paper to a journal but after it has been reviewed
the editors decide that although not suitable for their journal it is
likely to be appropriate for a similar journal. The author is then given
an option to transfer the manuscript to the other journal. It's
important to note that transferring a manuscript does not guarantee
acceptance in the other journal. If the author agrees to the transfer,
all manuscript files, metadata and reviewer report forms are sent to the
Collaborative Peer Review:
covers a broad variety of approaches in which a team of people work
together to undertake the review. One format is to have two or more
reviewers work together to review the paper, discuss their opinions and
submit a unified report. Another approach is to have one or more
reviewers collaborate with the author to improve the paper, until it
reaches a publishable standard.
Post Publication Peer Review:
this type of peer review, the option for appraisal and revision of a
paper continues - or occurs - after publication. This may take the form
of a comments page or discussion forum alongside the published paper.
Crucially, post publication peer review does not exclude other forms of
peer review and is usually in addition to, rather than instead of,
Becoming a Reviewer:
involved in the peer review process can be a highly rewarding experience
that can also improve your own research and help to further your career.
you're just starting out as a reviewer, don't be deterred. Journal
editors are often looking to expand their pool of reviewers, which means
there will be a demand for your particular area of expertise.
There is no one way to become a reviewer, but there are some common
routes. These include:
Asking a colleague who already reviews for a journal to recommend you
Networking with editors at professional conferences
Becoming a member of a learned society and then networking with other
members in your area
Contacting journals directly to inquire if they are seeking new
Seeking mentorship from senior colleagues
Working for senior researchers who may then delegate peer review duties
You could also try finding a journal with a mentoring program for early
career researchers looking to become reviewers.
Who Can Become a Reviewer?
In short, qualified, capable and enthusiastic people those are willing
to review papers and they wish to handle a paper.
Editors might ask you to look at a specific aspect of an article, even
if the overall topic is outside of your specialist knowledge. They
should outline in their invitation to review just what it is they would
like you to assess.
Research & Sustainable Development uses the iThenticate/Viper Plagiarism
software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in
submitted manuscripts. iThenticate/viper plagiarism software checks
content against a database of periodicals, the Internet, and a
comprehensive article database. It generates a similarity report,
highlighting the percentage of overlap between the uploaded article and
the published material. Any instance of content overlap is further
scrutinized for suspected plagiarism according to the publisher's
Editorial Policies. The Council allows an overall similarity of 20% for
a manuscript to be considered for publication. The similarity percentage
is further checked keeping the following important points in view:
The text of
every submitted manuscript is checked using the Content Tracking mode in
iThenticate/Viper. The Content Tracking mode ensures that manuscripts
with an overall low percentage similarity (but may have a higher
similarity from a single source) are not overlooked. The acceptable
limit for similarity of text from a single source is 5%. If the
similarity level is above 5%, the manuscript is returned to the author
for paraphrasing the text and citing the original source of the copied
important to mention that the text taken from different sources with an
overall low similarity percentage will be considered as a plagiarized
content if the majority of the article is a combination of copied
There may be
some manuscripts with an overall low similarity percentage, but a higher
percentage from a single source. A manuscript may have less than 20%
overall similarity but there may be 15% similar text taken from a single
article. The similarity index in such cases is higher than the approved
limit for a single source. Authors are advised to thoroughly rephrase
the similar text and properly cite the original source to avoid
plagiarism and copyright violation.
We all know
that scholarly manuscripts are written after thorough review of
previously published articles. It is therefore not easy to draw a clear
boundary between legitimate representation and plagiarism. However, the
following important features can assist in identifying different kinds
of plagiarized content. These are:
of others words, sentences, ideas or findings as ones own without proper
recycling, also known as self-plagiarism. It is an author's use of a
previous publication in another paper without proper
and acknowledgement of the original source.
paraphrasing: Copying complete paragraphs and
modifying a few words without changing the
structure of original
changing the sentence structure but not the words.
copying of text without putting quotation
marks and not acknowledging the work
of the original author.
Properly citing a work but poorly
paraphrasing the original text is
considered as unintentional plagiarism.
with language somewhere between paraphrasing
and quoting are not acceptable. Authors
paraphrase properly or quote and in both cases, cite the original
similarity in the abstract, introduction, materials and methods, and
discussion and conclusion sections indicates that
manuscript may contain plagiarized text.
Authors can easily explain these parts of
the manuscript in many ways.
technical terms and sometimes standard procedures
cannot be rephrased; therefore Editors must review these
carefully before making a decision.
in Published Manuscripts:
manuscripts which are found to contain plagiarized text are retracted
from the journal's website after careful investigation and approval by
the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. A 'Retraction Note' as well as a
link to the original article is published on the electronic version of
the plagiarized manuscript and an addendum with retraction notification
in the particular journal.
Other Free Plagiarism Software:
Confidentiality (Do not disclose to others):
is committed to ensuring the integrity in the peer review process.
Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their
academic merit. The editor-in-chief has full authority over the entire
editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that
content. Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents
and will not be treated as personal advantage by reviewers. Reviewers
should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the
Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a
submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author,
reviewers, other editorial advisors, and the publisher, as appropriate.
So, the every manuscript must be treated as confidential documents.
Editors and editorial members will not use unpublished information
disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own purpose. Privileged
information or given ideas obtained through peer review must be kept
confidential. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate. The
editor and reviewer are committed to the permanent availability and
preservation of manuscripts and ensure the accessibility by partnering
with organizations before publishing the manuscripts.
Double Blind Peer Review Process: