Guidelines for reviewers
At Hendun Research Access we value the work done by peer reviewers in the academic community, who provide their valuable services to the process of publication, driving research within their fields of expertise and play an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The following procedures and policies provide essential information for researchers who agree to assist us by assessing papers submitted to Hendun Research Access.
- For a manuscript submitted the author can suggest two potential reviewers for a publication and he can also notify maximum of two opposed reviewers and reasons for opposing for a publication.
- The editor-in-chief or in his absenteeism the editorial members handling the manuscript will assign the reviewers.
Confidentiality: Reviewers should not share, examine with outsiders without the prior permission from the editor, and should not disseminate the data from an assigned manuscript.
Analytical and worthwhile assessment: Reviewer comments should value and acknowledge positive aspects of the work, identify the drawbacks constructively, and indicate the enhancement needed. A reviewer should explain and support his or her judgment clearly so that editors and authors can understand the review comments. The reviewer should ensure that an observation or argument that has been previously reported must be accompanied by a relevant citation and should immediately alert the editor when he or she becomes aware of duplicate publication. A reviewer should not use any kind of abusive language while presenting the review comments on an article.
Impartiality and Integrity: Reviewer's decision should solely depend on scientific merit, relevance to the subject, scope of the journal rather than financial, racial, ethnic origin etc., of the authors.
Competence: Reviewer with fair expertise should complete the review. Reviewer with inadequate expertise should feel responsible and can decline the review as it is presumed that reviewer will be an expert in respective field.
Disclosure of conflict of interest: To the extent feasible the reviewer should minimize the conflict of interest. In such situation, reviewer should notify the editor describing the conflict of interest.
Timeliness and responsiveness: Reviewers should morally abide to provide the review comments within the stipulated time and be active enough in responding to the queries raised by the editor if any.