Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity and quality of research papers. They are expected to adhere to ethical guidelines set by organizations like the Higher Education Commission (HEC) in Pakistan. Here's a simplified version of these guidelines:

  1. Suitability and Promptness:

    • Reviewers should promptly accept or decline review requests based on their expertise.
    • They must submit their reviews on time and communicate any delays promptly.
    • Avoid unnecessary delays or requests for additional data.
  2. Standards of Objectivity:

    • Reviews should be objective and uphold academic standards.
    • Criticisms should be constructive and focused on the research paper, not the author.
    • Reviews should not be influenced by personal, financial, or other biases.
  3. Confidentiality:

    • Reviewers must treat the research paper as confidential.
    • Discussions about the paper should only occur with the editor's permission.
  4. Ethical Considerations:

    • Report any suspicions of plagiarism or unethical conduct to the editor.
    • Highlight any ethical concerns, such as treatment of subjects or previous research duplication.
    • Ensure proper citation and acknowledgment of previous work.
  5. Originality:

    • Assess whether the paper contributes to existing knowledge.
    • Ensure research questions align with the study's objectives.
  6. Structure:

    • Provide feedback on the paper's layout and formatting.
    • Evaluate language clarity and adherence to journal guidelines.
    • Assess the methodology, data presentation, and conclusions for accuracy and coherence.
  7. Review Report:

    • Clearly articulate observations and recommendations in the review comments.
    • Use the provided review form.
    • Summarize the review decision and main points courteously.
    • Avoid personal comments and focus on constructive feedback.
    • Clearly indicate acceptance, rejection, or need for revision, providing justifications.
    • Be willing to confirm revisions if requested by the editor.

Ultimately, the editor has the final decision on publication, considering reviewer feedback and the paper's quality.