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 submission. Review reports should also help authors revise their papers such that they may be accepted for publication.
• Reports accompanied by a recommendation to reject the paper should explain the major weaknesses of the research; this will help the authors prepare their manuscript for submission to a different journal.
• Confidential comments to the Editor are welcome, but they must not contradict the main points in the report for the authors.
• Peer reviewers should assess papers exclusively against the journal’s criteria for publication.

Before Reviewing

Please consider:

• Does the article you are being asked to review match your expertise?
• Do you have time to review the paper?
• Are there any potential conflicts of interest?

The Review

When reviewing the article, please keep the following in mind:

• Reviews should be conducted objectively.
• Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate, as are defamatory/libellous remarks.
• Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and references.
• Reviewers should declare any potential competing interests.
• Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts with which they believe they have a competing interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
• Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of material supplied to them.

We ask reviewers to provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript:

Sl. No	Parameters	Very Good	Good	Poor
1	Paper Originality
2	Research Methodology/Research Question (s)/Hypothesis(es)
3	Relevance of the Study
4	Reliability of the data
5	Sufficient and Appropriate Literature
6	Scientific Writing Style
7	Structure and Systemization of the Manuscript
8	Quality of English Satisfactory
9	Quantity and Quality of Reference
10	Suggestion and Conclusion

SJCC MRR is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication. We believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service to our authors and the research community as a whole. We, therefore, ask reviewers to respond promptly within the number of days agreed. If reviewers anticipate a delay, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternatives.

A peer reviewer’s report should provide members of the Editorial Board with the information needed to reach a decision, and should instruct authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable for publication.