Peer Review Policy
The practice of peer review is to ensure that only good research paper is published. All manuscripts are following the procedure outlined below:
IJELLH follows a policy of screening papers before sending them for full peer review. In the initial screening, the manuscripts could be rejected for any misconduct, plagiarism, poor grammar, or outside the aims and scope of the journal is found. IJELLH completes its initial screening of the manuscript within two days of paper submission. Those who meet the minimum criteria normally has to pass review of at least two experts.
Peer Review Policy
It is a process by which experts evaluate scholarly works, and its objective is to ensure a high quality of publishing.
The policy of peer review is adopted to ensure that only good quality and original research work is published. The peer review process makes sure the originality in the manuscript with trustworthy and accurate content. All submitted manuscripts are read and assessed by our professional editorial staff. We accept only those research papers that meet our scope for publication.
Peer reviewers are ideally experts in their field. Journals usually build a pool of peer reviewers that have a good track record of producing high-quality reviews. When a Manuscript is submitted to IJELLH, our task is to summon it to a double-blind peer review process to fulfil the basic requirements determined by our protocol.
Double Blind Review
IJELLH follow the double-blind review process. In the double-blind peer review process, author and reviewer do not know each other. The peer review process helps the publishing organization to choose research work for publication, accept it with improvements/modifications, or reject it. In the peer-reviewed process, the decision to publish a manuscript is the prerogative of a journal editor or the journal’s editorial board.
In general, at first read-through, reviewers will be assessing your argumentative construction, the clarity of the language, and content. They will be asking themselves the following questions:
- What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
- How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
- Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
- Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
- If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
- If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?
- Is the argument well-constructed and clear? Are there any factual errors or invalid arguments?
They may also consider the following:
- Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
- Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
- Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
- Does the paper follow a clear and organized structure?
- Is the paper an appropriate length?
- Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?
Upon closer readings, the reviewer will be looking for any major issues:
- Are there any major flaws?
- If the experimental design features prominently in the paper, is the methodology sound?
- Is the research replicable, reproducible, and robust? Does it follow best practice and meet ethical standards?
- Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
- Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
- Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
- Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language and manuscript structure all clear enough to accurately assess the work?
- Are there any ethical issues?
The reviewer will also note minor issues that need to be corrected:
- Are the correct references cited? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
- Are there any factual, numerical, or unit errors? If so, what are they?
- Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled?
Possible outcomes of peer review
The journal’s editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and uses this information to arrive at a decision. In addition to the comments received from the review, editors also base their decisions on:
- The journal’s aims and audience
- The state of knowledge in the field
- The level of competition for acceptance and page space within the journal