Reviewer Guidelines

What is Peer Review

Peer review is the evaluation of work by a group of people (Peers) having same level of competencies and working in same field. Peer review is the system used to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published. Independent researchers in the relevant research areas assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity, and significance to help editors determine whether a manuscript should be published in their journal.

How does it work?

When a manuscript is submitted to a journal, it is assessed to see if it meets the criteria for submission. If it does, the editorial team will select potential peer reviewers within the field of research to peer-review the manuscript and make recommendations.

Basic Requirements for a reviewer

The applicant must have PHD/M. Phil. degree or must be pursuing same to Join as a reviewer
The applicant must have substantial experience (5+ years) in their chosen field of research
The applicant's study area needs to fall within the scope of our journal
The applicant should be prepared to devote some time for reviewing manuscripts
He/She should have to review minimum 6 papers in a year

Benefits for Reviewers

Reviewing a manuscript is a time taking process but Peer-Reviewing offers several benefits to both reviewers and scientific community by improving the quality of published research. We have listed some major benefits of becoming a reviewer:

Volunteering as a peer reviewer provides you incredible opportunities
Eligible for reviewer Credit Points by IP Innovative publication
The Reviewers will get certificates for their contributions to the journal which can enhance their academic growth
Get your name listed in the Journals website after becoming a reviewer
Consider your name for the journal’s OUTSTANDING REVIEWER AWARDS
Peer review services will improve your familiarity with industry norms and enable you to gain the respect of your peers more rapidly
Receive a discount coupon code eligible for a reduction in the Article Publication Charges (APC) of a future submission of any Innovative Publication journal. Coupon codes are linked to your registered email id and can be applied online at the time of submission or any time before acceptance of your manuscript. If you wish to submit your works for publication in the journal, take advantage of special discounts on APC
Develop critical thinking & writing skills that is essential to research and helpful in career enhancement

How do I add my peer reviews for Innovative Publication to Web of science?

When reviewers review for Innovative Publication journals, we ensure our reviewers get recognition for reviewer contribution on Web of Science. After reviewing a manuscript, IP Reviewers are receiving a thank you mail from MPRP (Editorial Office) in the journal peer-review process, reviewers may send their thanks mail with web of science to receive verified recognition for their work. Forward your thank you contribution mail to reviews@webofscience.com to add your review record to your WOS account.

Invitation to Join Innovative Volunteer Reviewer

Review of manuscripts is essential to the publication process, and you will learn a lot about scientific publishing by serving as a reviewer. We cordially invite you to join our team of journal reviewers. If you are interested in joining as a reviewer for our journals, please register with the innovative MPRP Portal (Manuscript Peer Review Process) with required details, including your ORCID iD, institutional affiliation, and most important your subject specialization/area of interest. If you are already registered as an author, then request to Join as a Reviewer. The editorial office or managing editors of the selected journals will send you a confirmation once approved after verifying your profile.

Invitation to Reviewers

Manuscripts submitted to Innovative journal are reviewed by at least two subject experts. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and to provide a recommendation to the external editor on where a manuscript can be accepted, requires major or minor revision, or should be rejected.

We are inviting reviewers in the following manner:

Reviewers need to answer this message by clicking one of the options.

If you accept to review the manuscript please click the Accept link below:

Accept link: [Accept for review]

If you would not review manuscripts please click the reject link below:

Reject link: [Reject for review]

Login Details

Accept or decline any invitation quickly, based on the manuscript title and abstract
Suggest alternative reviewers if an invitation must be declined
Request an extension in case more time is required to compose a report

Reviewer should check the originality, significance of content, quality of the presentation, scientific soundness, interest to the readers, overall manuscript and significance to the Journal etc
Provide overall recommendation for the selection of the manuscript for publication
Provide construction details of the peer review report in points instead of paragraphs

Peer Review Checklist

S. No

Particulars

Details Description

1.

Title

Does the title reflect the main subject/hypothesis of the manuscript? Is the title complete?

2.

Abstract

Does the abstract summarize and reflect the work described in the manuscript?

3.

Keywords

Do the keywords reflect the focus of the manuscript?

4.

Background

Does the manuscript adequately describe the background, present status, and significance of the study?

5.

Methods

Does the manuscript describe methods (e.g., experiments, data analysis, surveys, clinical trials, etc.) in adequate detail? Are the study methods are sound and appropriate? Is statistical analysis appropriate.

6.

Results

Are the research objectives achieved by the experiments used in this study? Does the manuscript meet the requirements of Biostatistics?

7.

Discussion

Does the manuscript interpret the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points concisely, clearly, and logically? Are the findings and their applicability /relevance to the literature stated in a clear and definite manner? Is the discussion accurate and does it discuss the paper’s scientific significance and/or relevance to clinical practice sufficiently?

8.

Illustrations and tables

Are the figures, diagrams, and tables sufficient, good quality, and appropriately illustrative of the paper contents? Do figures require labeling with arrows, asterisks, etc., and better legends?

9.

References

Does the manuscript cite appropriately the latest, important and authoritative references in the introduction and discussion sections?

10.

Quality of manuscript organization and presentation

Is the manuscript well, concisely, and coherently organized and presented? Is the style, language, and grammar accurate and appropriate?

11.

Research methods and reporting

The article is of interest to members of the education research community?

12.

Ethics statements

For all manuscripts, author(s) must submit the related formal ethics documents that were approved by their local ethical review committee. Did the manuscript meet the requirements of ethics?

Review Structure

Is the manuscript clearly laid out? It should be check properly whether all points are addressed properly or not? Consider each element in turn:

Title: Does it clearly describe the manuscript?
Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the manuscript?
Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction is one to two paragraphs long. It should summarize relevant research to provide context and explain what findings of others, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, hypothesis (es); general experimental design, or method.
Material and methods: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the manuscript identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
Results: this is where the author(s) should explain in words what he/she/they discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section. Do the figures and tables inform the reader, are they an important part of the story? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they consistent, e.g. bars in charts are the same width, the scales on the axis are logical?
Discussion and conclusion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
Language: If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, while it may make it more difficult to understand science, you do not need to correct the English. You may wish to bring it to the attention of the editor.

Peer Review Process

The peer review process can be broadly summarized into various steps, although these steps differ slightly from Journal to Journal as mentioned in the diagram below.

Feedback: “Reviewers should remember that they are representing the readers of the journal. Will the readers of this particular journal find this informative and useful?”

1. Submission of Manuscript: The corresponding or submitting authors submit the manuscript to the journal via Manuscript Peer-Review Process Submission portal.

2. Editorial office scrutiny: The journal checks the manuscript composition and arrangement against the journal's author’s guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections, style and plagiarism etc. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.

3. Decision by Editor-in-Chief (EIC): The Editor-in-chief checks that the manuscript appropriate for the journal is sufficiently original, interesting and fitting under Aim & Scope or not. If not, the manuscript may be rejected without being reviewed for any further action.

4. Editor-in-Chief assigns an Editorial Board (EB): Journals have an Editorial board who handles the peer review. If they do, they would be assigned at this stage.

5. Invitation to Reviewers: The handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would an be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained – commonly this is second, but there is some variation between journals.

6. Response to Invitations: Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.

7. Review is conducted: The reviewer sets time aside to read the manuscript several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work, Otherwise, they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it, or else with a request for revision or highlight as either major or minor before it is reconsidered.

8. Journal evaluates the reviews: The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the review differs widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.

9. Decision is communicated: The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Whether the comments are anonymous or not will depend on the type of peer review that the journal operates.

10. Acceptance confirmation: If accepted, the manuscript is sent to production stage. If the manuscript is rejected or sent back for either major or minor, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter to inform them of the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.

Reviewer Overall Recommendation

Please provide an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript as follows:

Accept Paper in Present Form: The manuscript is accepted without any further changes.
Accept Paper After Minor Revisions: The manuscript is in principle accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments, authors are given a one-week duration for minor revisions.
Accept Paper after Major Revision: The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point-to-point reply or provide a denial if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. Usually, only one round of major revisions is allowed. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within one week and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments.
Reject Paper: The article has a serious content issue and does not follow the original contribution, and the paper is rejected with no offer of resubmission to the journal.

What is ORCID?

ORCID is a non-profit organization that provides researchers with a unique digital identifier. These identifiers can be used by publishers, authors, editors, funding agencies, and institutions to reliably identify individuals in the same way that ISSNs and DOIs identify journals and articles. The ORCID website provides researchers with a page where your comprehensive research activity can be stored.

How can I obtain ORCID iD?

Registration is free at orcid.org/register. It takes only a few seconds.
Your registration only once and can use your ORCID iD permanently.
After registration, you will get a 16 digit unique ORCID record that you can use in terms of content and decide who will be able to see it. When you submit a paper, you can be sure that your work takes on a life of its own, you will always be credited. We encourage authors to sign up and submit their ORCID iD along with their paper submission.

How to add peer review to my ORCID record?

Innovative Publication is committed to recognizing the valuable and critical role performed by peer reviewers. We fully support, verify, and credit your review activity directly from our manuscript submission systems to ORCID.

When you submit your review manuscript you will be given the chance to opt-in to this service.
If you choose to opt-in you will be asked to log in to your ORCID account. If you don’t have ORCID iD you can create one ORCID account orcid.org/register
After successful registration, login into ORCID, Innovative pre-publication portal www.mprp.in of your review activity to ORCID. Your review activity will be shown on your ORCID profile. Only the year of the review and the journal and manuscript title will be shown.
You will be asked to opt-in or out for every review, however, reviews of multiple revisions of the same manuscript will show as a single review activity on ORCID, with the year of the most recent review.
The record may be deleted at any time by contacting ORCID directly.
Innovative can’t upload verification of past review to ORCID.

Conflicts of Interests

Innovative ask reviewers to inform the journal editor if they hold a conflict of interest that may determine the review report, either in a negative or positive direction. The editorial office team will check as far as possible before the invitation, however, we appreciate the cooperation of reviewers in this matter. Reviewers who are invited to assess a manuscript they previously reviewed for another journal do not consider this as a conflict of interest in itself. Having a direct or indirect financial interest in the paper being reviewed. Professional or personal benefit resulting from the review.

Reviewer Resources

“Quality of research publication is our goal”, Innovative Training and Support team is continuously working hard for the quality content of journals. We have prepared a gist of a video bites series to support peer review learning . These are 24*7 accessible self-learning modules. For detailed training please click here.

S. No	Particulars	Details Description
1.	Title	Does the title reflect the main subject/hypothesis of the manuscript? Is the title complete?
2.	Abstract	Does the abstract summarize and reflect the work described in the manuscript?
3.	Keywords	Do the keywords reflect the focus of the manuscript?
4.	Background	Does the manuscript adequately describe the background, present status, and significance of the study?
5.	Methods	Does the manuscript describe methods (e.g., experiments, data analysis, surveys, clinical trials, etc.) in adequate detail? Are the study methods are sound and appropriate? Is statistical analysis appropriate.
6.	Results	Are the research objectives achieved by the experiments used in this study? Does the manuscript meet the requirements of Biostatistics?
7.	Discussion	Does the manuscript interpret the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points concisely, clearly, and logically? Are the findings and their applicability /relevance to the literature stated in a clear and definite manner? Is the discussion accurate and does it discuss the paper’s scientific significance and/or relevance to clinical practice sufficiently?
8.	Illustrations and tables	Are the figures, diagrams, and tables sufficient, good quality, and appropriately illustrative of the paper contents? Do figures require labeling with arrows, asterisks, etc., and better legends?
9.	References	Does the manuscript cite appropriately the latest, important and authoritative references in the introduction and discussion sections?
10.	Quality of manuscript organization and presentation	Is the manuscript well, concisely, and coherently organized and presented? Is the style, language, and grammar accurate and appropriate?
11.	Research methods and reporting	The article is of interest to members of the education research community?
12.	Ethics statements	For all manuscripts, author(s) must submit the related formal ethics documents that were approved by their local ethical review committee. Did the manuscript meet the requirements of ethics?