Introduction

IJSSER endorses the practice of peer review because it enables independent specialists who operate within the same academic field as the authors to evaluate and comment on the research that is being published. Additionally, it assists in the enhancement of manuscripts and enables editors to evaluate whether or not a work is suitable for publication.

Review process

The peer review process for the journal uses a double-blind system. The initial consideration is given to manuscripts by the editorial staff, and then either the Editor-in-Chief or a Section Editor decides whether or not to forward them to two expert independent reviewers.

Reviewer invitations

Reviewer invitations come from the journal's Editor-in-Chief and are sent out via email. The abstract of the manuscript will be attached to the invitation in order to assist you in deciding whether or not to accept the invitation.

Accept or decline the invitation.  

Once you have acknowledged that you will be reviewing the invitation, you will be able to download the manuscript.

Due date

Kindly finish the review by the date that was given as the deadline. Please get in touch with us if you need the deadline to be extended.

Submitting the review

The entirety of the review process is carried out on the website of the journal. Please get in touch with us if you are experiencing any difficulties in accessing the manuscript or entering your feedback.

Competing interests

If you have a potential conflict of interest, you shouldn't review a manuscript that someone else has written. If there are any conflicts of interest, please declare them during the review process.

Double-blinded peer review 

Make sure that your review comments are presented in the appropriate format in order to protect the credibility of the double-blind peer review:

1.     In Microsoft Word: Remove hidden data and personal information by inspecting your document.

2.     With PDFs in Adobe Reader, remove all personal information within the document properties.

The Responsibility of the Peer Reviewer
The peer reviewer is responsible for critically reading and evaluating a manuscript in their speciality field and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their submissions. It is appropriate 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.

Before Reviewing

Please consider the following:

• Does the article you are being asked to review match your expertise?
  If you receive a manuscript that covers a topic that does not sufficiently match your area of expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Please feel free to recommend an alternate reviewer.
• Do you have time to review the paper?
  Finished reviews of an article should be completed within the given time periods. If you do not think you can complete the review within this time frame, please let the editor know and if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer. If you have agreed to review a paper but will no longer be able to finish the work before the deadline, please contact the editor as soon as possible.
• Are there any potential conflicts of interest?
  While conflicts of interest will not disqualify you from reviewing the manuscript, it is important to disclose all conflicts of interest to the editors before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interest, please do not hesitate to contact the receiving editorial office.

Please follow the below guidelines.

Section	Points to Ponder
Abstract, title, and references	·       Is the aim clear? ·       Is it clear what the study found and how they did it? ·       Is the title informative and relevant? ·       Are the references: ·       Relevant? ·       Recent? ·       Referenced correctly? ·       Are appropriate key studies included?
Introduction/ background	·       Is it clear what is already known about this topic? ·       Is the research question clearly outlined? ·       Is the research question justified, given what is already known about the topic? ·       It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es), and the general experimental design or method. ·       Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources?
Methods	·       Is the process of subject selection clear? ·       Are the variables defined and measured appropriately? ·       Are the study methods valid and reliable? ·       Is there enough detail in order to replicate the study?
Results	·       Is the data presented in an appropriate way? ·       Are tables and figures relevant and clearly presented? ·       Appropriate units, rounding, and a number of decimals? ·       Titles, columns, and rows labeled correctly and clearly? ·       Are categories grouped appropriately? ·       Does the text in the results add to the data, or is it repetitive? ·       Are you clear about what is a statistically significant result? ·       Are you clear about what is a practically meaningful result?
Discussion and Conclusions	·       Are the results discussed from multiple angles and placed into context without being overinterpreted? ·       Do the conclusions answer the aims of the study? ·       Are the conclusions supported by references or results? ·       Are the limitations of the study fatal or are they opportunities to inform future research?
Overall	·       Was the study design appropriate to answer the aim? ·       What did this study add to what was already known on this topic? ·       What were the major flaws of this article? ·       Is the article consistent within itself?
Language and length	·       The article should follow the stylistic requirements stated on the IJSSER webpage. ·       The length of the article should not exceed 8000 words. ·       The English of the article should be near native and preferably checked by a native speaker. ·       Errors in spelling and grammar should be corrected by the authors.

 

You also have the ability to attach files to your review. If you attach any files, please ensure that they are anonymous, maintaining the blind review process.

Please ensure you complete all required sections of your review report. These fields will be marked with a red “req” symbol. Try to avoid straight yes or no answers when completing the scorecard. In some cases, the journal may also require you to complete a further questionnaire, which will be sent to you when you accept the invitation to review a manuscript.

After you have completed the written fields on the Scorecard, you are required to make a recommendation to the Editor as to the next step for the journal. The Editor will take your overall recommendation into account.

Recommendations:

• Accept Submission
• Revisions Required
• Resubmit for Review
• Resubmit Elsewhere
• Decline Submission
• See Comments