Peer review is the principal mechanism by which the quality of research is judged. It helps in making the scientific contents error-free and verified in terms of ethical standards. Graphy publications committed to fair peer review process in the scientific publication to ensure high quality scientific contents in all Graphy journals.
The criterion for selecting reviewers is the responsibility of the Associate Editor for the reviewing of particular manuscript.
- Area of Expertise
- Specific recommendations of the author's and academic editor's
- Reviewer's response
Graphy publications follows the single blind peer review process for all the articles which comes under publication. The review process for all articles are carried out through automated tracking Editorial Managing System (EMS) in an easy and quick manner.
Once the manuscript received through tracking system the manuscript is checked by Managing Editor for plagiarism, then the manuscript is immediately assigned to one of the Editorial Board Member based on the research interest by Editor-In-Chief/ Managing Editor. If the assigned editor agreed to handle the assignment, he/she can choose any of the way from below to review the manuscript:
- Editor can review the manuscript without assigning it to reviewers, or
- Assignee 3 to 5 potential reviewers for the review process, or
- Assignee the task to Managing Editor of the Journal to assign reviewers on his behalf.
If the assigned reviewers realize that a conflict of interest exists after the review process begins, please notify the handling editor immediately, so another reviewer can be solicited to review the manuscript.
When potential reviewers agree to review the manuscript, they are given a two week time-frame to complete the review process and submit their review comments with the reviewer recommendation to the Assigned Editor or submit it directly to the Editorial Office of the Journal.
After the reviews are completed, a decision is made either to accept the paper or give the author to revise according to reviewer's suggestions or to reject the paper based on the reviewer's criticisms.
- Accept without any modification, or
- Accept with Major Revisions, or
- Accept with Minor Revisions, or
- Re-review after revision, or
The review comments are then submitted to the corresponding editor, who will make a final decision whether to Accept, Revise or Reject the manuscript. Once the editor is done with his decision, the decision letter and reviewer comments are sent to the author for revision.
After submission of the revised manuscript, the manuscript is evaluated to determine whether the author have adequately addressed and answered the critiques of the reviewers and editors. Depending upon this evaluation, manuscripts may be accepted, returned for further revision, or rejected.
The reviewer's decision should solely depend on scientific merit, relevance to the subject, scope of the journal. The reviewer, who agreed to review any manuscript he/she should adhere to maintain reviewer responsibilities.
- Reviewer should maintain confidentiality during the review process on the existence and substance of the manuscript. The reviewers are requested not to share the manuscript or to discuss it in detail with others before publication.
- Reviewer must provide the review comments in a constructive way providing a legible insight to author without any controversy and with no personal criticism.
- Reviewer should responsible to complete the review process within the relevant time. On time review helps the publisher to provide a valuable, rapid service both to authors and to the scientific community.
- Reviewer with passable expertise will serve the purpose to complete the review process. People lacking adequate expertise should feel responsible and can decline from the review process.
- Reviewer must evaluate the manuscript based on originality, quality, and contribution to evidence about important questions. Those decisions should not be influenced by commercial interests, personal relationships or agendas, or findings that are negative or that credibly challenge accepted wisdom.