How to Become a Peer Reviewer for Journals

PEER REVIEW WORKFLOW

PEER REVIEW WORKFLOW

SELECTION OF REVIEWERS

All manuscripts submitted to Bentham Open Publishers (BSP) are peer-reviewed by members of the journals' editorial lath, skillful reviewers, and the editor-in-chief. Just those manuscripts which successfully meet our quality requirements are published.

External reviewers are selected from PubMed and WOS, depending on the field of expertise relevant to the articles' scope. Members of the editorial board and Bentham's reviewer panel are likewise invited to share their opinion.

PEER REVIEW INVITATION

Manuscripts are forwarded to editors for evaluation initially and subsequently to contained external reviewers to check if the research work presented in the manuscript:

• Falls within the scope of the periodical and
• Meets the editorial criteria of BSP in terms of originality and quality.

Regarding the first bespeak, editors may recommend the credence or rejection of a manuscript past conducting the scope review themselves, based on their knowledge and experience, or they may take help and communication from other experts in the field.

Regarding the second indicate, Bentham conducts independent peer review on all papers submitted for publication. Before sending any manuscript to reviewers, Bentham Open seeks consent from potential reviewers and editorial board members near their availability and willingness to review the paper. Correspondence between the members of the journal'southward editorial office and the reviewers is kept confidential. The reviewers are asked to:

• Accept or reject review invitation based on the title and abstract.
• Suggest alternative reviewers (optional) if the reviewers pass up the review invitation based on their field of expertise not being directly relevant to the article telescopic, their decorated schedule, or any potential disharmonize of interest with the authors.

Access to the total-text version of the manuscript is provided to the agreed reviewers via our online organization (https://bentham.manuscriptpoint.com/manuals/index.html). To use our online peer-review organization module, please read the reviewer'southward manual or watch the tutorial.

Bentham follows a single-blind peer-review process where the identity of the reviewer is not disclosed to the authors.

Bentham follows a single-blind peer-review process where the identity of the reviewer is non disclosed to the authors, and also review report of 1 reviewer is kept confidential with other reviewers.

After receiving the review of the manuscript by at least three independent experts, in addition to the views of the editor, the conclusion is relayed to the authors via our Manuscript Processing System (MPS), which may be categorized as:

• Requires no changes
• Requires minor changes
• Requires major changes
• Rejected but may be resubmitted
• Rejected with no resubmission

PURPOSE OF A REVIEW

A review report provides the editor-in-chief/senior editor with an expert opinion on the quality of the manuscript nether consideration. It also supplies authors with explicit feedback on how to improve their papers to make them acceptable for publication in the periodical. Remarks that may assistance meliorate the quality of the manuscript are forwarded to the authors for their consideration.

SELFLESS PEER REVIEW

BOP aims to facilitate objective peer review free of self-interested bias. Information technology is highly recommended to avoid self-promotion in any form, including the following:

• Potentially competitive work, whether in progress or submitted elsewhere, must not impact the timeliness of the manuscript or editorial assessment.
• All requests for particular citations must be relevant to the submission. During peer-review, referencing citations of the authors' ain or his/her coworkers' publications must be avoided.
• Unless approved past the publisher, reference to articles with bodily, potential, or perceived conflict of interest must be avoided. Competing interests guidelines must be followed.

HOW TO REVIEW

Reviewers are expected to provide advice on the following points in their review reports (depending on the type of article):

• Does the article prevarication inside the scope of the journal?
• Is the manuscript written comprehensively? If not, how could it be improved?
• Have adequate proofs been provided for the announcement?
• Is this a new/ original contribution of significance?
• Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology to reproduce the experiments? In the case of experimentation on human subjects, has informed consent been taken?
• Has the writer provided the approval from the local institutional review board? Or does the manuscript conform to the Helsinki Declaration on homo experiments in the "Methods" department? For further details, please visit: https://openpainjournal.com/research-ethics-policies.php
• Have the authors used the Reporting Guidelines, i.e., Consort, STROBE, PRISMA, STARD, CARE, EQUATOR, in their studies (if applicable)? For further details, please visit: https://openpainjournal.com/standards-of-reporting.php
• Has the author obtained the approval of the institutional ethics committee regarding experimentation on animals or other species? Is the proper name of the species mentioned in the article'due south title, abstract, and methods section? For more details, please visit https://openpainjournal.com/research-ideals-policies.php
• Bentham Open encourages authors to publish detailed protocols as supporting data online. Does any particular method used in the manuscript warrant such a protocol?
• Are figures/illustrations of appropriate quality?
• Is the sample size adequate for the study?
• What are the chief findings of the newspaper?
• Is relevant work of other authors in the field appropriately acknowledged and comprehensive references given to the previous relevant literature?

During the review process, if reviewers find any scientific misconduct or fraud, plagiarism, conflict of interest, or any other unethical beliefs related to the manuscript, they are expected to inform the editorial office immediately. Similarly, if they think that they are unable to review a certain section of the manuscript, and then the editorial office should also exist informed.

Reviewers are required to rate manuscripts on each of the above mentioned points along with their remarks for authors and editors. For further details, please review a sample evaluation course [Template Evaluation Grade]. The authors are conveyed the comments of the reviewers, and given the opportunity to answer to them. In instance the author does not concord with the comments of the reviewer, then the Editor-in-Principal may decide in the matter or the manuscript may be conveyed to additional reviewers for a decision. The identity of the reviewers is always kept strictly confidential.

Publishers recommend that reviewers review COPE Ethical Guidelines to provide quality unbiased review reports. Delight read the complete guidelines at Committee on Publication Ideals available online.

BSP recommends its reviewers to strictly adhere to COPE guidelines to comply with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practise in Scholarly Publishing.

Please as well refer to the COPE's most popular resources, i.e., core practices, flowcharts, eLearning courses, and cases (available at COPE'southward website).

PRIVACY STATEMENT

The peer-review of a manuscript is a confidential process. Reviewers should keep the whole process completely confidential. They should consult the EIC/senior editor and take permission before consulting another colleague for help in the peer-review of the submitted manuscript.

Reviewers should not disclose any information whatever to anyone earlier the publication of the manuscript.

Peer Review Manipulation

Peer-review manipulations are dealt with equally per the guidelines given by COPE.

• Peer-review manipulation suspected during the peer-review process [VIEW Catamenia Chart].
• Peer-review manipulation suspected after publication [VIEW FLOW CHART].

REVIEW TIME

The agreed reviewers are expected to provide their reports within 2-iii weeks since a prompt review leads to the timely publication of a manuscript, which is beneficial non only to the authors but as well to the scientific community. Nevertheless, a reviewer who needs extra fourth dimension for reviewing should consult the editorial office. The average review time of a journal is 45 days, only it may vary depending on the availability of reviewers.

The authors may also opt for Quick Rail Facility on certain charges for the processing of their manufactures on the fast track, but please annotation that standard reviewing practices volition exist followed, which will non, in any way, affect the credence or rejection of the manuscript by the reviewers.

CHANGES IN REVIEW REPORTS

The editorial staff relays the comments of the reviewers on behalf of the editor-in-chief/handling editor. The review reports are edited by the editor-in-chief/treatment editor if the comments incorporate confidential data or are written in a language not suitable for scholarly communication. Reviewers should include such comments in the confidential section of the review course, which is intended to be read by the editors only.

Conflict OF Interest

Bentham Open respects requests for not having the manuscripts peer-reviewed by those experts who may have a competing involvement with the author(s) of a submitted manuscript. It is not possible for editors to exist aware of all competing interests; therefore, we look that reviewers would inform the editor-in-chief/treatment editor/ editorial director if they detect whatever potential competing involvement during review of a manuscript; reviewers are not encouraged to contact authors directly regarding whatsoever of their conflict of involvement. Peer reviewers should follow journals' policies in situations they consider to represent a disharmonize to reviewing. If no guidance is provided, they should inform the editorial manager in example: they work at the aforementioned institution every bit any of the authors (or volition be joining that institution or are applying for a job in that location), they are or have been recent (e.g., within the by 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or articulation grant holders, and they have a shut personal relationship with any of the authors. Reviewers are asked to re-ostend that they do not accept any disharmonize of interest with the authors of the submitted manuscript at the fourth dimension of review completion. For farther details, please visit: https://openpainjournal.com/instructions-for-authors.php

EDITORIAL DECISION

The authors are unremarkably requested to resubmit the revised paper within 15 days, and it is and so returned to the reviewers for further evaluation. The publishers normally let one round of revision, and in exceptional cases, a second round of revision may be immune. If further revision is needed, and so the manuscript is rejected, and the author is requested to resubmit the manuscript for fresh processing.

The final decision regarding credence or rejection is by the editor-in-main, depending on his/her assessment on the revisions recommended by the referees, and about the overall quality of the revised manuscript. In rare cases, manuscripts recommended for publication by the referees may be rejected in the terminal cess past the editor-in-chief.

TRANSFERRED ARTICLES

If a manuscript is rejected due to its unsuitability according to the aims and scope of a particular journal, then information technology may be transferred to another journal (with the consent of the author) that has a like scope equally the manuscript. For further details, please visit: https://openpainjournal.com/manuscript-transfer-facility.php

APPEALS AND COMPLAINTS

Mostly, editorial decisions by Bentham Open are non reverted. However, authors who call up that their manuscript was rejected due to a misunderstanding or fault may seek an explanation for the decision. Appeals must give sound reasoning and compelling prove confronting the criticism raised in the rejection letter. A departure of opinion regarding the interest, novelty, or suitability of the manuscript for the periodical will not be considered an appeal. The editor-in-chief and other relevant editors will consider the appeal, and the decision thereafter taken past the journal will exist deemed final. Acceptance of the manuscript is not guaranteed even if the periodical agrees to reconsider the manuscript, and the reconsideration process may involve previous or new reviewers or editors and substantive revision.

Complaints on ethical practices or academic misconduct volition be handled according to the processes outlined in our academic misconduct guidelines.

Authors who wish to make a complaint should refer to the editor-in-chief of the journal concerned by contacting the editorial office. Complaints to the publisher may be emailed to info@benthamscience.net. Bentham Open sends an acquittance to the complainant and undertake appropriate action. For matters involving the editor-in-chief of a journal, Bentham Open seeks the opinion of the editor-in-principal and suitable action is then taken.

REVIEWRS' Acquittance

Bentham Open greatly appreciates the reviewers for their efforts and valuable time during the peer-review process. Therefore, it publishes names of reviewers under the section "Acknowledgment to the reviewers" who have reviewed manuscripts for over 12 months, whether manuscripts are published or not.

The consummate peer-review history of a reviewer is maintained in our Online Manuscript Processing System. Each review is awarded some points, which can be redeemed by reviewers whenever they require.

Bentham Open up has likewise made its publication and review data available on Publons. Publons provides formal recognition to our peer reviewers by producing a verified record of their peer reviews and editorial contributions to bookish journals. Learn more about Publons here:

https://publons.com/publisher/219/bentham-scientific discipline-publishers

BECOME A REVIEWER

For joining our reviewers' panel, the candidates must take

• Ph.D. degree and inquiry experience in the master subject field surface area of the journal and the manufactures under review
• Reviewed manuscripts before
• Published manuscripts that are very well-cited past the research community.

Those willing to join our reviewers' console are expected to submit their details at (REVIEWER REGISTRATION Grade)

nitzvolappece.blogspot.com

Source: https://openpainjournal.com/become-a-reviewers.php

Share this post