Guidelines for Reviewers
The process of peer review is double bind process which includes experts, those who have common area of interest, expertise and experience to evaluate the work to be published. The reviewers will be given priority utmost to reflect the appraisals of a research work and to extract the potentialities of the researcher.
On submission, all papers undergo initial screening for selection for the JDS by the Editors. Suitable papers will be sent to at least two independent referees chosen by the Editor-in-Chief, and the reports from the referees are then considered by the Editor-in-Chief, who will make the final decision. Papers which are considered to be unsuitable for the JDS will be informed by email to the corresponding author.
For papers requiring modification, once the modified manuscript is returned it is checked by the Editor-in-Chief. If further modifications are required the manuscript is returned to the author(s) with a letter and/or report explaining further changes.
A letter of acceptance is sent to the Corresponding Author requesting all authors sign the contributory form and submit by e-mail.
Finally Galley Proof is sent to the Corresponding Author for further addition/deletion in the proof and then considered for publication online/print.
Guidelines for Peer-reviewers (As per ICMJE Guidelines)
Format for comments
I. General Information
Date:
Article No:
Article Type:
Article Title:
Reviewer Name:
II. Scientific Criteria
- poor
- needs improvements
- good
- excellent
- poor
- needs improvements
- good
- excellent
- poor
- needs improvements
- good
- excellent
- Does the article have a logic structure?
- Is the article correctly written (from the grammar point of view)?
- Does the article present in an appropriate way the terminology for its area of interest?
- poor
- needs improvements
- good
- excellent
- poor
- needs improvements
- good
- excellent
- poor
- needs improvements
- good
- excellent
- Does the introduction correctly highlight the current concerns in the area?
- Does the introduction specify the research objectives?
- poor
- needs improvements
- good
- excellent
- Are the methods used clearly explained?
- Are the data and statistics used reliable?
- poor
- needs improvements
- good
- excellent
- Are the results clearly presented?
- The results sufficiently avoid misinterpretation?
- poor
- needs improvements
- good
- excellent
- poor
- needs improvements
- good
- excellent
- Do the references reflect the latest work/research in the considered area?
- Are the references properly indexed and recorded in the bibliography?
- poor
- needs improvements
- good
- excellent
- Should correctly indicate the measuring units and the source?
- Are the tables correctly named and numbered?
- Are the data presented in tables correctly valued and interpreted in the article?
- poor
- needs improvements
- good
- excellent
- Graphs and figures should be properly illustrate the discussed subject
- Are the graphs and figures correctly named and numbered?
- poor
- needs improvements
- good
- excellent
- Accepted
- Rejected
Comments to the author
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................