Peer-Reviewer Guidelines

To sustain reliability in research, the process of double blind peer-review in scholarly journals provides manuscript evaluations by experts in terms of meeting publication standards and determining the scientific validity and reliability of the papers. The system allows Editors to identify the value of paper submitted and provide feedback for enhancement of research quality. Peer-reviewers are entrusted with the responsibility for evaluating research manuscripts submitted by providing constructive comments on areas of research importance, contributions of the study to literature, research methods and procedures used, quality of presentation, and implications of the paper. As their comments and recommendations are of advisory nature, they are exonerated from any liability for their decisions on the manuscripts acceptance or rejection with or without revisions.

    Functions of Peer-Reviewers include
  1. Declaring any conflict of interests between the author and reviewer at any stage,
  2. Recluse himself/herself from the peer-review process in case of conflict of interests,
  3. Having the confidentiality duty not to use or disclose any information on the manuscript under peer-review, and not to disclose his/her identity to the author,
  4. Completing the paper review within a month,
  5. Ensuring the manuscript is free from plagiarism, fabrication and falsification,
  6. Providing comments and useful suggestions for improvement of manuscript,
  7. Apply the standards set by the Editorial Board and ethical frameworks in the review of manuscript,
  8. Provide critique to serve as basis for acceptance or rejection of  submitted manuscript, and
  9. Destroying any manuscript upon publication in the Journal.

Procedures of the Double Blind Peer-Review Process

The procedures aim to ensure timely and fairly editorial decisions on the outcomes of the double blind peer-review process for the benefits of the stakeholders, namely; authors, editors, reviewers, readers, and the community at large.

  1. Submission of Manuscript: The manuscript should be submitted by the author to the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal as per the guidelines for authors.
  2. Initial Decision: The Editor-in-Chief examines the submission for completeness, fitness in scope, and sufficiency for the succeeding review process.  An Initial Decision will be taken specifying
    1. rejection of the manuscript without further action,
    2. rejection of manuscript subject to further action of the author, or
    3. acceptance of manuscript to be double blind peer-reviewed. The author will be informed of the initial decision as soon as practicable.
  3. Formal Manuscript Peer-Review: Reviewers conduct the formal manuscript review, and manuscripts are sent back to the Editor-in-Chief with comments and recommendations on manuscript by using the ADRJS Report or his/her own within one month. The Peer-Reviewer should end the Report by any of the following advisory decision;
    1. Accept without revisions.
    2.  Accept with minor revisions.
    3.  Accept with major revisions.
    4.  Reject.
  4. Acceptance/Rejection of Manuscript: The Editor-in-Chief decides acceptance or rejection of submission in the light of the advisory decisions of the Peer-Reviewers. In any case, the paper and the content of the Report will be communicated to the author.
  5. Revisions/corrections should be made by the author, who then must submit the revised manuscript within ten to twenty days, depending on the nature and scope of revisions.
  6. The Revised Manuscript will be sent back to the peer-reviewers to ensure compliance of the author with the recommended minor or major revisions/corrections.
  7. Final Decision to accept or reject should be made within three months of the date of initial submission.
  8. Conflict of Advisory Decisions: In case of conflict of comments/ recommendations between two peer-reviewers, the Editorial Board will decide whether to seek a third opinion or adopt one of the two decisions.
  9. Publication of Advisory Decisions: Comments/recommendations made by the peer-reviewers may be published upon the written approval thereof.
  10. Disclosure of Identity of Peer-Reviewers: Under no circumstance, during and after the peer-review process, the identity of the peer-reviewer will be disclosed to the author or else, except upon written consent of the former addressed directly to the Editor-In-Chief.
  11.