Reviewer – Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)

Journal Type: Quarterly | Double-Blind Peer Reviewed | Open Access | OJS Platform

Part A: Reviewer SOP (Very Simple Version)

1. Role of the Reviewer

A Reviewer is a subject expert who evaluates the quality, originality, and ethical soundness of submitted research manuscripts.

2. Responsibilities as a Reviewer

As a Reviewer, you are required to:

• Review the manuscript within the stipulated timeframe
  
  

• Provide objective and evidence-based feedback
  
  

• Maintain strict confidentiality of the author and the journal
  
  

3. What to Evaluate During Review

• Whether the manuscript fits within the journal’s scope
  
  

• Clarity of research questions and objectives
  
  

• Appropriateness of methodology
  
  

• Logical presentation of results and discussion
  
  

• Adequacy and currency of references
  
  

4. What Not to Do

• Do not attempt to identify the author
  
  

• Do not show personal or institutional bias
  
  

• Do not share the manuscript or its contents elsewhere
  
  

5. Possible Recommendations

• Accept
  
  

• Minor Revision
  
  

• Major Revision
  
  

• Reject
  
  

6. Timeline

• Reviews should normally be completed within 2 to 3 weeks
  
  

Part B: Reviewer SOP (Detailed Version)

1. Role and Responsibilities

The Reviewer’s responsibility is to evaluate the academic quality, research validity, and ethical integrity of manuscripts submitted to CIJMR and to provide clear and reasoned recommendations to the editor.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review Policy

• Reviewers will not know the author’s name, affiliation, or identity
  
  

• Authors will not know the reviewer’s identity
  
  

• The entire review process is strictly confidential
  
  

3. Accepting or Declining a Review Invitation

Upon receiving a review invitation:

• Accept the invitation if the subject matches your expertise
  
  

• Decline if you lack time or have a conflict of interest
  
  

• When declining, you may suggest alternative reviewers if appropriate
  
  

4. Conflict of Interest

A Reviewer must not review a manuscript if:

• The author is a colleague, student, or supervisor
  
  

• The author belongs to the same institution
  
  

• There is any financial, personal, or professional interest in the research
  
  

In such cases, the Associate Editor or Managing Editor must be informed.

5. Evaluation Criteria

5.1 Originality and Contribution

• Does the study contribute new knowledge?
  
  

• Is it properly linked to existing literature?
  
  

5.2 Research Design and Methodology

• Is the research design appropriate and scientifically sound?
  
  

• Are data collection and analysis methods adequate?
  
  

5.3 Results and Discussion

• Are results clearly presented?
  
  

• Are interpretations and discussions logical and justified?
  
  

5.4 Language and Presentation

• Is the language clear and academic?
  
  

• Are tables, figures, and references correctly formatted?
  
  

6. Guidelines for Writing Reviewer Comments

• Comments should be constructive and written in a respectful tone
  
  

• Focus on the manuscript, not the author
  
  

• Clearly distinguish between major and minor comments
  
  

• Provide examples or references where necessary
  
  

7. Types of Recommendations

The Reviewer should select one of the following recommendations:

• Accept: No significant revisions required
  
  

• Minor Revision: Small corrections or clarifications needed
  
  

• Major Revision: Substantial changes required
  
  

• Reject: Manuscript does not meet journal standards or scope
  
  

8. Timeline

• Review reports should be submitted within 14 to 21 days of acceptance
  
  

• Any expected delay must be communicated to the Associate Editor in advance
  
  

9. Ethics and Confidentiality

Reviewers must:

• Maintain confidentiality of all manuscript content
  
  

• Not use manuscript content for personal research or gain
  
  

• Report suspected plagiarism or data fabrication to the editor
  
  

10. Review Submission Process (OJS)

• Log in to OJS and complete the Reviewer Form
  
  

• Enter comments separately under:
  
  

  • Comments to Author
    
    

  • Comments to Editor
    
    

• Select a recommendation and submit the review
  
  

11. Recognition

• Active reviewers will be awarded a Certificate
  
  

• Reviewer names may be published annually in the Reviewer Acknowledgement List
  
  

Final Note

By following this SOP, Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the academic quality, ethical standards, and international credibility of CIJMR.