Peer Review Publication Policy
Home / Peer Review Publication Policy
Peer Review Publication Policy
Manuscripts submitted for publication in KAAV Journals are subjected to single blind peer-review, except for a selected number of patent journals where double blind review is followed. Single blind reviewing maintains the identity of the reviewers, not disclosing their names to the authors. The anonymity of reviewers ensures objective and unbiased assessment of the manuscript by reviewers.
Basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere Peer reviewers should:
The manuscript should be written in English in a clear, direct and active style, free from grammatical errors and other linguistic inconsistencies. All pages should be numbered sequentially, facilitating the reviewing and editing of the manuscript. Authors should seek professional assistance for correction of grammatical, scientific and typographical errors before submission of the revised version of the article for publication. Professional editing services may also be sought by the team available at KAAV PUBLICATIONS at an extra charge.
The research must meet the highest applicable international standards of the ethics of experimentation and research integrity. A brief description on ethical guidelines is given in the ‘Instructions for Authors’ of every journal published by KAAV PUBLICATIONS.
only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner
respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal
not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others
declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest
not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations
be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments
acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner
provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise
recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct
Authors should present and interpret the results and conclusions in an appropriate and comprehensive manner, clearly explaining the results and outcomes of their study. Incomplete interpretation of results may result in rejection of the manuscript.
IMPORTANT POINTS TO CONSIDER:
Reviewers are expected to provide advice on the following points in their review reports:
- Is the manuscript written comprehensively enough to be understandable? If not, how could it be improved?
- Have adequate proofs been provided for the declarations?
- Have the authors addressed the previous findings fairly?
- Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology to reproduce the experiments?
- Bentham Science encourages authors to publish detailed protocols as supporting information online. Do any particular methods used in the manuscript warrant such a protocol?
PRIVACY STATEMENT:
The peer-review of a manuscript is a confidential process. Reviewers should keep the whole process completely confidential. They should consult the EiC/Senior Editor and obtain permission before consulting another colleague for help in the peer-review of the submitted manuscript.
Reviewers should not disclose any information whatsoever to anyone before publication of the manuscript.
