GUIDELINES TO REVIEWER

  1. Get Published
  2. GUIDELINES TO REVIEWER
  •  Relevance of the figures and table, clarity of legends and titles.
  •  Suitability for the TP and overall recommendations. Appropriate for general readership or more appropriate for specialist journal?
  •   If not acceptable can the paper be made so?
  •   Ethical aspects
  •  Overall presentation (including writing style, clarity of writing)
    •   In comments intended for the author's, criticism should be presented dispassionately, and abrasive remarks avoided.
    •   Suggested revisions should be couched as such, and not expressed as conditions of acceptance. Please distinguish between revisions considered essential and those judged merely desirable.
    •   Even if we do not accept a paper we would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the author to improve it. For this reason, please give detailed comments (with references, if appropriate) that will help both the editors to make a decision on the paper and the authors to improve it.
    •  Your criticism, arguments, and suggestions concerning that paper will be most useful to the editor if they are carefully documented.
    •  You are not requested to correct mistake/s in grammar, but any help in this regard will be appreciated.
    •   The editor gratefully receives a reviewer's recommendations, but since the editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, a reviewer should not expect the editor to honor his or her every recommendation.