A reviewer, also known as a peer reviewer or referee, is an expert in a particular field who evaluates the quality, validity and significance of research manuscripts submitted to journals. Reviewers play a key role in the scholarly publishing process by providing feedback and recommendations to improve the quality of the work and determine its suitability for publication or funding.
Peer Review Process
https://blueprintacademicpublishers.com/index.php/bap/peer-review-process-and-timelines
What should be checked while reviewing a manuscript?
• Novelty.
• Originality.
• Scientific reliability.
• A valuable contribution to science.
• Adding new aspects to the existed field of study.
• Ethical aspects.
• Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines.
• References provided to substantiate the content.
• Grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
• Scientific misconduct.
Reviewer Eligibility
Reviewers are chosen based on suggestions from the article authors, with the editorial team ensuring that they meet our reviewer criteria. We encourage authors to suggest people who are experts in their field of research, and when selecting reviewers, editorial team or authors consider several criteria to ensure the quality and objectivity of the peer review process.
1. Expertise and Knowledge - Reviewers should have expertise and knowledge in the specific subject area covered by the manuscript. They should possess a strong understanding of the relevant theories, methodologies, and literature in the field. Reviewers with relevant expertise are better equipped to evaluate the scientific soundness, methodology, and significance of the research.
2. Research Experience - Reviewers should have an established research track record in the field, with relevant publications and contributions. This demonstrates their familiarity with the research process, standards, and practices. Reviewers with research experience can provide valuable insights, identify potential flaws or limitations, and evaluate the originality and novelty of the work.
3. Objectivity and Impartiality - Reviewers should approach the review process with objectivity and impartiality, regardless of personal biases, conflicts of interest, or any prior interactions with the authors. They should evaluate the manuscript solely based on its scientific or scholarly merit and provide constructive feedback and recommendations to improve the manuscript.
4. Timeliness and Responsiveness - Reviewers should be committed to providing timely and prompt reviews. They should respond to review invitations within the given timeframe and complete the review within the agreed-upon deadline. Timely reviews are crucial for ensuring an efficient publication process and minimizing delays.
5. Communication and Writing Skills - Reviewers should possess strong communication and writing skills to provide clear, constructive, and insightful feedback to the authors. They should be able to express their opinions, critique the manuscript effectively, and offer suggestions for improvement. Reviewers' comments should be well-structured, coherent, and respectful.
6. Ethical Conduct - Reviewers are expected to adhere to ethical guidelines and maintain the confidentiality of the peer review process. They should treat the manuscript and its content as confidential and not disclose or use any unpublished information for personal gain. Reviewers should also disclose any conflicts of interest that may affect their impartiality and objectivity.
7. Professionalism and Collegiality - Reviewers should demonstrate professionalism and collegiality in their interactions with authors, editors, and fellow reviewers. They should provide feedback and critique in a respectful and constructive manner, fostering a positive and collaborative peer review process.
BAP invites eligible scholars and researchers to join the Reviewer Panel of our journals. If you are interested, please email us at info@blueprintacademicpublishers.com with your full names, affiliation, educational qualification, research experience and publication record.
