Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer serve as committed reviewers who can be nominated by editors and are invited by the editors in chief to serve as Reviewer in a journal in 3-years term and it is extendable and depends on proficiency and interest in the review. They are expected to provide reviews on at least 10–12 manuscripts per year and to do so according to timeliness and quality expectations.

Reviewers should possess a high level of expertise in their specialty (or specialties), have experience with reviewing manuscripts, and a commitment to participating in the review process of the journal. These individuals are named on the journal reviewer list.

Reviewers Qualifications:

• Research expertise, typically through a PhD
• Expertise in content areas to be covered
• Some review experiences
• Record of scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals

Peer Review Process of the Journal

Manuscripts submitted to the journals go through an editorial board peer review model. In this model, an editor-in-chief (EIC) is responsible for assigning each manuscript to an editor who has the appropriate content expertise. The editor assigns typically one or two reviewers (journal policy) who are listed in the Reviewer pool list or ad hoc reviewer, or any combination thereof. Reviewers submit lists of strengths and weaknesses in a number of categories appropriate for the type of manuscript as well as any brief additional comments. Upon receipt of reviews, the editor is not expected to provide additional detailed comments. The editor, in a decision letter, instead helps the author identify the most important changes, particularly when Reviewer or ad hoc reviewers disagree. An editor would be free to recruit additional reviews, such as for specialized statistics review, as needed.