In order to ensure a high standard of publication, all papers submitted to Mesford Journals will go through peer review prior to publication. It is suitable for the Peer Reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, ways to improve the strength and quality of the work and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.
We encourage the efforts, dedication and availability of Referees from their busy schedule. It is highly appreciable if the following changes are notified at early:
– Contact Details (Affiliation and correspondence details)
– Availability and Holidays schedule (e.g. sabbaticals)
– Area of Research interest
Peer Review Process Description
All submitted manuscripts are dealt via Mesford Editorial System . If referee is already member then there would be a Login/Password for access whereas for new user it will be necessary to register at . Furthermore, through the registration Manuscript submission and Review Procedure will be conducted easily in Mesford Journals.
Confidentiality of Article
Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shared or discussed with others, unless authorized by the Editor. Unpublished information or material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.
The referee should provide their reports in a timely fashion as a prompt review guides to the timely publication of a manuscript which is beneficial not only for the authors but for the scientific community as well.
Ambiguity of Referee
Referee’s identities remain anonymous throughout review procedure. All articles undergo through double blind review procedure. To help preserve the integrity of this process reviewer does not need to mention their name within the text of review.
Conflict Of Interest
The Referee are expected to inform the Editors or editorial office of the journal if they have a conflict of interest in carrying out a review of a manuscript submitted by any author/contributor of the manuscript.
If any of the ethical violation suspects on behalf of the authors without mentioning the previous work i.e. Plagiarism and Fraud via outlining concerns in the comments to the editor. Confidentiality of the comments and name would be responsibility of editor/publisher.
Structural Checklist for Reviewer
While reviewing the Manuscripts following structural values need to be checked according to the Journal recommendations:
|Novelty||Submitted manuscript should be original and have the quality to contribute in the respective field of research.|
|LAYOUT and format||Formatting of manuscript should be according to the Author Guideline illustrated in the journal information|
|Title||Article title must clearly illustrate the article|
|Abstract||Abstract must cover all the mandatory field of the article|
|Introduction||In general, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context and explain what other authors’ findings (if any) are being challenged or absolute. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis (es) and the general experimental design or method.|
|Methodology||In this section accuracy of data collection and records is must. In depth presentation of new methodologies (if follows). Complete details of equipment and materials must be mentioned.|
|Statistical Error||These are common error and so close attention should be paid.|
|Results||Clearly mention the results obtained via research.|
|Conclusion/Discussion||Consistency of findings a/c to the author expectations (if not) the claims are reasonable and supported by the results.|
|Graphics and Tables||Format of table/ graphics should be uniformed throughout article. In addition, figure is illustrating the data accurately.|
|Language||Language should be understandable for the reader. Poor Quality of English must be mentioned in the review comments.|
Referee is provided with the Evaluation Form at the time of Manuscript submission for Peer Review. The first purpose of refereeing is simply to inform the editors as to the paper’s suitability for publication in the journal. Referee comments are mandatory if any of other confidential comments which referee does not want to mention to the author would be illustrated in the confidential comments. The decision summary would be selected as follows:
|· Accept as it is||· Reject with Resubmission|
|· Accept with Minor Revisions||· Reject with No-Resubmission|
|· Accept with Major Revision (resubmission required)|
Accept As it is: The submitted manuscript may proceed for publication in the current form.
Accept with Minor Revisions: It may require the author to make relatively small adjustments to the paper, the type of which that would not take too much time. These may be to bring the paper more in line with author guidelines with a slightly reduced word count, formatting changes or the labeling of tables or figures; further evidence of an understanding of the extant research literature; or to elaborate a little more on the research findings.
Accept with Major Revision (resubmission required): Major revisions might require the author to make more significant improvements, the type of which that may take weeks or even months rather than days. Authors may be asked to address flaws in the methodology; collect more data; conduct a more thorough analysis or even adjust the research question to ensure the paper contributes something truly original to the body of work.
Reject with Resubmission: Manuscript is acceptable in the current form but may be re-submited after consideration of the recommended comments.
Reject with No-Resubmission: Manuscript is not acceptable.