Peer review process
Peer review is a critical factor in promoting the rigor and high quality of scientific research. The entire scientific community benefits when the peer-review process is timely, thorough, and balanced. The editors of ISTP greatly appreciate the tremendous collective contribution that reviewers make to our journals and the articles they publish.
Through the peer review process, manuscripts should become:
- More robust: Peer reviewers may point out gaps in your paper that require more explanation or additional experiments.
- Easier to read: If parts of your paper are difficult to understand, reviewers can tell you so that you can fix them.
- More useful: Peer reviewers also consider the importance of your paper to others in your field.
Typically two or three reviewers will be invited for peer review on each article. For reviewing invitation, the reviewer should make quick response, accept or decline. If decline, the reviewers are welcomed to suggest alternatives who are available and capable of doing this work. If accept, the reviewer is expected to submit a review report of this manuscript, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered. The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers’ advice and feedback to authors.
Of course, in addition to offering authors advice, another important purpose of peer review is to make sure that the manuscripts the journal eventually publishes are of high quality. If a journal publishes too many low-quality manuscripts, its reputation and number of readers will decline.
The role of a reviewer
Peer review - and reviewers - are at the heart of the academic publishing process. To establish and maintain the level of excellence of a journal it is necessary that submitted articles be critically read by someone who can judge the correctness, originality, and significance of the work. Peer reviewers are experts who volunteer their time to help improve the journal manuscripts they review, they provide feedback on the paper, suggest improvements and make a recommendation to the editor about whether to accept, reject or request changes to the article. The more the reviewer’ expertise can match the topic of the paper, the more likely we will be able to render a fair decision on the publication of the paper. The ultimate decision always rests with the editor but reviewers play a significant role in determining the result.
Reviewing a paper on a topic related to your area of expertise is a valuable contribution to the advancement of the field. Participating in the peer review process is also a way to stay informed about emerging scientific advances. ISPT welcomes new reviewers and appreciates the contributions of all who volunteer their time and expertise to review submissions to our journals.
Responsibilities of reviewers
The anonymous evaluation of a paper should follow some generally accepted professional guidelines, and it places the reviewer under certain obligations to the author and the journal.
- It is important to preserve the objectivity of peer review and public confidence in its rigor and impartiality. Before accepting a review request, reviewers should disclose conflicts of interest resulting from direct competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, and avoid cases in which such conflicts preclude an objective evaluation. If you are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest, you should seek advice from the journal. If you are unable to review a manuscript, you should decline the invitation promptly and you are encouraged to provide suggestions of other potential reviewers who would be qualified to examine the manuscript.
- In addition, reviewers may not use the unpublished information described in manuscripts they are reviewing as resources for their own research interests. Likewise, these data, methods, or hypotheses should not influence financial decisions, such as buying or selling stocks. Information that has already been presented as an abstract, at a conference, or in another publication is considered public knowledge and does not require this privileged treatment.
- Reviewers must preserve the confidentiality of unpublished work. Any manuscript or abstract sent for peer review is a confidential document and remains so until it is formally published. It is not appropriate to discuss unpublished manuscripts at laboratory meetings or journal clubs.
Requirements of reviewers
- Possess a doctoral degree in a discipline related closely to the journal.
- Hold a teaching or research position at a university or academic institution.
- Be fluent in academic and professional English.
- Have a strong interest in the STM journal.
- Accept or decline any invitations quickly, based on the manuscript title and abstract.
- Provide a detailed, constructive review report before the deadline.
Benefits and rights of reviewers
- Reviewers have the right to recommend articles to ISTP journals. All articles recommended by reviewers will be prioritized upon acceptance after peer-review.
- Reviewers will be invited to participate in academic conferences or scientific meetings organized by the ISTP for a discounted registration fee.
- Outstanding reviewers who have good performance on reviewing work will be awarded annual special prize and have the opportunity to become an editorial board member.
How to become an ISTP reviewer?
If you want to be a reviewer of ISTP, please contact our editorial office for application by sending your latest CV with a color Photo to firstname.lastname@example.org. Kindly mention in mail subject “Application for a reviewer for ISTP”. Please click here to download application form.