Manuscripts submitted for publication in the Qubahan Academic journal (QAJ)are subjected to double-blind peer-review. Double blind reviewing maintains the identity of both author and reviewer, not disclosing their names to the authors. The anonymity of reviewers ensures objective and unbiased assessment of the manuscript by reviewers.
The reviewer needs to follow the following step during the review process.
1. Accept or decline manuscript review within 2-4 weeks.
2. After acceptance, the link to download the manuscript will be activated.
3. Access the online review form and submit the revision.
4. Submit the final decision; Decline, Accept, Accept with revision, .., etc.
Reviewers are advised to consider the following important aspects of a manuscript when conducting the review.
1. Reporting of Original Results:
The results reported in the manuscript must be original and authentic work of the authors. They should be devoid of any plagiarism and the material should not have been published earlier. Studies which report some reproduced results, for example, a new clinical trial, may also be considered for publication.
2. Experiments and Analyses:
Experiments and other analyses should meet the recognized technical standards and must be described systematically. The research presented in a manuscript should facilitate in reaching accurate conclusions from the statistics. Methods and experiments as well as reagents should be documented in detail.
3. Interpretation of Results:
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.
4. Language of Composition:
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 are advised to contact Bentham Science’s contracted service provider Eureka Science for any assistance, if needed, on the language editing of their manuscripts.
5. Experiments involving Humans and Animals:
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 Bentham Science.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
QAJ respects requests not to have the manuscripts peer-reviewed by those experts who may have a competing interest with the author(s) of a submitted manuscript. It is not possible for Editors to be aware of all competing interests; we, therefore, expect that reviewers would inform the Editor-in-Chief/Handling Editor if they notice any potential competing interest during the course of the manuscript review. Moreover, the reviewers are expected to inform the Editors or editorial office of the journal if they have a conflict of interest in carrying out a review of a manuscript submitted by any author/contributor of the manuscript.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. QAJ shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Peer Review Process
The following is the review process that every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes during the course of the peer-review process.
The entire review process is performed using the online submission. Once a manuscript is submitted, the manuscript is assigned to an editor most appropriate to handle it based on the subject of the manuscript and the availability of the editors. First, the editor evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare but entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be rejected at this stage. Those rejected at this stage either lack originality, have poor grammar or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Should the editor decide not to assign reviewers but instead reject the submission, they are required to provide comments that will be sent to the author.
If the editor determines that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the journal, they will assign the manuscript to a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 5 external reviewers for peer review. The deadline to complete the review process is 4-8 weeks. The reviewers will then submit their reports on the manuscripts along with their recommendations for one of the following actions to the editor:
- Consider after Minor Changes
- Consider after Major Changes
When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the editor can make one of the following editorial recommendations:
- Consider after Minor Changes
- Consider after Major Changes
If the editor recommends “Publish,” the manuscript is accepted for publication.
If the editor recommends “Consider after Minor Changes,” the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor changes suggested by the reviewers. Only the editor reviews the revised manuscript after the minor changes have been made by the authors. Once the editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, the manuscript can be accepted.
If the editor recommends “Consider after Major Changes,” the recommendation is communicated to the authors. The authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the changes recommended by the reviewers and to submit their revised manuscript in a timely manner. Once the revised manuscript is submitted, the editor can then make an editorial recommendation, which can be “Publish” or “Consider after Minor Changes” or “Reject.”
If the editor recommends rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. Additionally, if two of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate.
The editors have the authority to reject any manuscript due to the inappropriateness of its subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results.
The peer review process is single blinded, which means the reviewers know who the authors of the manuscript are but the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer reviewers are.