Peer review process

Review Procedure

All submitted manuscripts that satisfy the conditions pointed out in the previous paragraphs undergo the peer reviewing procedure (single blind peer review) which includes the preliminary reading by the area editor, reviews by the selected independent international referees and the editorial board review/decision final step. Referees reports are fully considered by the editorial board and some of the review comments may be directed to assist the author in revising the paper. Authors must track the process and revise the text if requested by editor.

Reviewer Instructions

Most important decisions in science and academic are based on peer-reviewed publications. Peer review is the fundamental mechanism by which the quality of research is judged.

The quality of the peer-review process together with the quality of the editorial board are the primary factors which define a journal’s reputation, impact factor, and position in the research community.

Scientific journals publishing peer-reviewed articles depend heavily on the scientific referees or reviewers who typically volunteer their time and expertise. In addition to fairness in judgment and expertise in the field, peer reviewers have significant responsibilities toward authors, editors, and readers.

Reviewer’s benefits

1. Reviews completed for JCOMSS will automatically be added to Publons (if enabled in person’s profile) as part of Publons partnership with the Journal.
2. Reviewers who provide significant and timely comments will receive a discount codes (only after the final decision of the reviewed paper) which can be used for paper personally submitted to the journal.

All valid vouchers can be applied to one invoice. Once an invoice has been issued, vouchers can not be applied anymore. In case of rejection the paper, voucher can be reapplied in the next submission.

Peer-reviewer responsibilities toward authors

• Providing written, unbiased feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work, together with the documented basis for the reviewer’s opinion
• Indicating whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant and rating the work’s composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to the journal’s readers
• Avoiding personal comments or criticism
• Maintaining the confidentiality of the review process: not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper

Peer-reviewer responsibilities toward editors

Notifying the editor immediately if unable to review in a timely manner and providing the names of potential other reviewers

Alerting the editor about any potential personal or financial conflict of interest and declining to review when a possibility of a conflict exists

Complying with the editor’s written instructions on the journal’s expectations for the scope, content, and quality of the review

Providing a thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work, which may include supplementary material provided to the journal by the author

Determining scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it; and recommending acceptance or rejection using whatever rating scale the editor deems most useful

Noting any ethical concerns, such as any violation of accepted norms particularly at substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript concurrently submitted to another journal which may be known to the reviewer

Refraining from direct author contact

Peer-reviewer responsibilities toward readers

Ensuring that the methods are adequately detailed to allow the reader to judge the scientific merit of the study design and be able to replicate the study, if desired

Ensuring that the article cites all relevant work by other scientists