• +91 9410292371
  • crsdindia@gmail.com

Peer Review Process



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 consideration.


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:

The 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:

In 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:

This is 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:

The 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:

This is 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 receiving journal.

Collaborative Peer Review:

This 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:

With 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, pre-publication review.


Becoming a Reviewer:

Getting 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.

If 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 reviewers

  Seeking mentorship from senior colleagues

  Working for senior researchers who may then delegate peer review duties to you

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.

 Plagiarism Detection


Plagiarism Prevention

Council of 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:

Low Text Similarity:

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 material.

It is 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 material.

High Text Similarity:

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.


Types of Plagiarism

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:

Reproduction of others words, sentences, ideas or findings as ones own without proper acknowledgement.

 Text recycling, also known as self-plagiarism. It is an author's use of a previous publication in another paper without proper

     citation and acknowledgement of the original source.

Poor paraphrasing: Copying  complete  paragraphs  and modifying  a few  words  without  changing the structure of original

     sentences or changing the sentence structure but not the words.

 Verbatim  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.  Similarly,

    manuscripts  with  language  somewhere  between  paraphrasing  and  quoting  are  not  acceptable.  Authors  should either

    paraphrase properly or quote and in both cases, cite the original source.

 Higher similarity in the abstract, introduction, materials and methods, and discussion and conclusion sections indicates that

    the  manuscript  may  contain  plagiarized  text.  Authors  can  easily  explain  these  parts of  the  manuscript  in many ways.

    However,  technical  terms and  sometimes standard  procedures cannot be  rephrased; therefore Editors must review these

    sections carefully before making a decision.


Plagiarism in Published Manuscripts:

Published 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):

  Description: Image: Confidential.

CSRD 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 authors.

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: