Double Blind Peer Review Process
Under the Peer Review process, EJAHSS follows a Double Blind Review process where both the reviewer & author remain anonymous to each other. In the intangible field of knowledge, setting a parameter could be incompatible with the immediate thought. One has to follow a certain norm while adjudging an article, when it comes to precision and appraisal. These are as follows: -
Confidentiality is a key of proficiency. We recommend a secret review process that is not shared between the reviewer and the author. This is entirely an individual product of the reviewer, where the judgment is made upon certain measures, essential to a collective research area. Professional asceticism is desirable.
Blind review is meant for fair-dealing. In these process, the reviewer is kept unknown of the authors’ identity and whereabouts. This process serves the assurance of consistency & neutrality on the part of the reviewer.
Time is given huge fair value. The entire review process is a meticulous analysis within a restricted time period. With a touch of expertise and knowledge, the reviewer has to adhere to a given deadline.
Keeping relevance with the context, the submission has to be original in words and in idea. Reviewer should judge an article with respect to its genuineness. Every article should possess some exponential constituent within it. If the reviewer finds any sort of lacking in originality, the article should immediately be passed on to the editor mentioning the reference portion along with its unique manuscript ID.
Language is the career of idea. So it needs to be well-structured, simpler and familiar in order to merge with a lucid style of paraphrasing the different beneficial points and comments. Therefore, a smart diction is desirable on the part of the reviewer.
Review Report Consists:
Reviewers are required to evaluate the manuscripts and provide useful comments to enable the author(s) improve the quality of the manuscript. Reviewers also score the manuscript in terms of originality, contribution to the field, technical quality, clarity of presentation and depth of research. Finally, reviewers make one of the following suggestion about the manuscript;
- * Requires minor corrections
- * Requires moderate revision
- * Requires major revision
- * Not suitable for further processing. In this case, the reviewer provides specific reason(s) why the manuscript not be further processed.
It should be noted that though a reviewer may give a positive report on a particular manuscript, if another reviewer raises concerns that may fundamentally undermine the study and results the manuscript may be rejected.
Upon receipt of the reviewers’ comments, the editorial office reviews the comment. If the two reviewers’ comment have significantly different/or contradictory opinions about the same manuscripts, the manuscript is re-sent to a third reviewer. All reviewers’ comments (including the third reviewers’ comment where necessary) are thereafter sent to the author(s). The reviewers’ identities are concealed from the author(s). The total time taken to complete the second stage of the manuscript review dependent on the availability of the reviewers. However, it is usually completed between one to two weeks.
Using the reviewers’ comments, author(s) make corrections to the manuscript and submits a revised manuscript. Upon receipt of the revised submission, the manuscript undergoes the third and final stage of the review process. The original manuscript, the revised manuscript and all the reviewers’ comments are sent to an editor of the journal. The editor reviews the manuscript and makes one the following decisions
- * Accept as it is
- * Accept with minor correction
- * Requires major corrections
- * Send revised manuscript for review again
- * Reject