•  
  •  
 

Guidelines for peer reviewers

At SASTRA, JGMR trusts that peer review is the strong foundation for ensuring the integrity and quality of the scholarly research. All the submitted manuscripts will be thoroughly reviewed by the experts to establish the standards in publication. The journal practices double-anonymized peer review process to ensure the publication of professional quality papers.

1. Editorial Board

Editorial board members from their areas of expertise will represent the journal and review the scripts. Managing Editors have the entire process responsibility from receiving the scripts at the stage of submission to the decision of acceptance or rejection. Editorial assistants will be assisting the editorial office in the administration of entire editorial system. Copy editors and Technical editors are responsible for reading and editing of the scripts. Associate editors or Deputy editors will work with Editor-in-chief to assist in decisions and take the responsibility for any specific area of the journal. Editor-in-chief is the senior editor with the wholesome responsibility for the content of the journal and the entire strategy of the editorial board.

2. Editorial Procedure

After receiving the submissions, the editorial assistants will perform the pre-checking of the technicality of the script. After checking, the chief editor will decide whether to continue with the peer review process or to reject the manuscript at the desk itself. He can also request for the revision before peer review. If the decision is to continue with the review process, review committee will be formed with independent experts. He is expected to receive a minimum of two review reports per script. Before the final decision is made, authors will be requested to make adequate revision. If needed, a second review can be made before the final decision is made by the chief editor. Accepted scripts will be handled by copy editors and technical editors to have a copy editing and English editing.

3. Qualifications

  • Reviewer should hold a Ph.D. and possess relevant experience with a recognised academic affiliation.
  • Reviewer should have a proven record of publication in indexed data bases.

4. Ethical Responsibilities

  • COPE guidelines for reviewers would be considered before accepting a review and during a review process.
  • Reviewers are expected to have the accountability of evaluating manuscripts in a transparent and ethical manner within the schedule time.
  • Reviewer should read the entire manuscript including supplementary materials, if applicable, with due care and diligence.
  • Personal reputation of the authors should not be questioned through the interpretation of the statements made by the reviewers.
  • The references in scripts are to be properly verified and ensured that they are accurate.
  • Reviewers are expected to ensure whether the submitted manuscripts are as per the author guidelines.
  • Provision of an unbiased review process to all manuscripts assigned and opinion should be given irrespective of socio-cultural factors.
  • Declaration of conflict of interest in reviewing a manuscript is to be submitted before agreeing to review the same.
  • The review process should be kept confidential and any information without the explicit approval of the editor shall not be shared.
  • Unpublished scripts should not be uploaded into any of the generative AI tools which will affect the confidentiality of the scripts before publishing.
  • Impersonation and usage of AI tools should not be present in drafting the review report.
  • Comprehensive and constructive peer review report is expected with maximum appropriateness.
  • Inclusion of authorship in the manuscript at the review stage is not to be requested by reviewer to the authors. If any major contribution is made by the reviewer, a representation in writing should be sent to the editorial board for evaluation. If not done, the manuscript is subject to rejection.

5. Review Criteria

The following dimensions are to be considered at the time of review process:

  • Research originality and relevance to the scope of the journal
  • Comprehensive literature review and the research gap identification
  • Identification of research problem and formulation of research design
  • Clarity in data presentation and discussion
  • Presentation of the results and the scope for impact on society

6. Review Process

  • Maximum time of 4 to 6 weeks for review – strictly to be adhered.
  • The comments should address the revisions clearly and be understandable by the authors.
  • The review report should consist of a summary mentioning the aim of the manuscript together with its strengths and major contributions.
  • After completion of the review, the reviewer is expected to make recommendations to the editor regarding publication as follows:
    • Accept: In case the manuscript is appropriate for publication in its existing form.
    • Revisions: Recommend the revisions (as major/minor) in case the manuscript can be made appropriate for publication after revisions by authors.
    • Reject: When the manuscript is not appropriate for publication in its existing form or in case the revisions to be made are too many for submission and not worth for resubmission within the stipulated time.