Peer review process

The editorial policy of this journal is designed according to the aspects, advices and recommendations of Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE). Submission of a manuscript to IJPDCM implies that all authors have read and agreed to its content and that the manuscript conforms to the journal’s policies.

Normally review process takes one to two weeks. For peer review process usually two or more, independent reviewers, were selected by the editors. The Reviewers treat the review process as being strictly confidential. Immediately after getting reviewer comments/suggestions manuscripts are sent to authors for improvement of their article. Reviewer are invited by editor-in-chief or editors through request made via email. Reviewers come from national or international territory. Reviewers are assigned to review articles in their own particular field of expertise. The editors make a decision based on the reviewers’ advice.

Double-blind review

• In the double-blind review process, both the reviewer and the author are anonymous means their identity is hidden from each other.
• As author identity is hidden so it prevents biasing of any reviewer based on country, work, etc. (Title will not sent to the reviewer during whole review process)

Reviewer Guidelines                                    

International Journal of Pandemic, Disaster and Crisis Management is a peer-review journal; we perform the quality control for submitted manuscripts by the refereeing process. We are very grateful to our Reviewers for the time and effort they spend evaluating manuscripts for this journal.

While preparing the reports, Referees are asked to: Describe the quality of the manuscript according to the following criteria.

Originality of work; has not been published elsewhere in any medium by the authors or anyone else and is not under consideration for publication in any other medium.

• Scope of the journal
• Methods of investigation
• English language
• Backup reading: references

Short Notes should meet the key standards listed above and additionally should report high quality new work of such importance that merits urgent publication, and should be likely to make significant impact on the current research in the relevant area. If however a contribution is not justified to be handled via rapid channel it may be considered as a research paper, probably after expansion or revision.

Review Articles should contain the most significant results of the subject under review. All reviews for this journal should be accurate scientifically, should describe the most relevant and recent contributions, the subject matter should be discussed competently and the choice of citations should be adequate and should not overlook important contributions of other workers.

General Expectations

While preparing the reports, we ask our Referees to: § comment on the originality of the presented work, § comment on whether the manuscript presents the most recent literature on the topic discussed, § evaluate the authors’ experimental or theoretical approach to the discussed problem(s), § evaluate the reliability of the results and validity of the conclusions, § comment on technical aspects of the paper, such as the statistical analyses, § inform us whether we should consider the manuscript further and what should be done in order to make it publishable (if that is possible), § describe the significance that the work has for the scientific community, § please, DO NOT put your name, affiliation or address in the review

Please note that accepted papers will undergo language editing by native English speakers. Incorrect grammar, style or punctuation should not constitute sufficient reason to reject a paper if it is still intelligible for the reviewer and its content warrants publication from a scientific point of view.

Double-blind peer review guidelines

For this journal that uses double-blind peer review, the identities of both reviewers and authors are concealed from each other throughout the review. To facilitate this, authors must ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in such a way that they do not reveal their identities to reviewers, either directly or indirectly.

Conducting the Review

The IJPDCM is peer review journal. Peer review is the collaborative process that allows manuscripts submitted to a journal to be evaluated and commented upon by independent experts within the same field of research. Upon receipt, manuscripts are assessed for their suitability for publication by the editorial staff. Only the manuscripts meeting the journal’s general criteria for consideration are sent out for review. Reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially, the articles  should not be disclosed to a third party.

Peer-review publication policies

All contributions submitted to this journal that are selected for peer review are sent to at least one, but usually two or more, independent reviewers, selected by the editors. Authors are welcome to suggest suitable independent reviewers and may also request that the journal excludes one or two individuals or laboratories. The journal sympathetically considers such requests and usually honours them, but the editor’s decision on the choice of referees is final.

The publisher reserves the right to contact funders, regulatory bodies, journals and the authors’ institutions in cases of suspected research or publishing misconduct.

Reviewers should check the following parameters;

Articles are of outstanding scientific importance

• Adherence to the instruction to authors
• complete organization of articles
• Appropriateness of title and abstract
• Appropriateness  and adequacy of methodology
• Appropriateness of figures and tables
• Relevance of discussion
• Soundness of conclusions and interpretation
• Appropriateness of referencing

Published 

Structure

Is the article clearly laid out? Are all the key elements (where relevant) present: abstract, introduction, methodology, results, conclusions? Consider each element in turn:

• Title: Does it clearly describe the article?
• Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
• Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors’ findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es) and the general experimental design or method.
• Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
• Results: This is where the author/s should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.
• Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
• References: References list should be in APA style. In text citation, for any source with more than two authors, type out the first author’s last name followed by “et al.” Follow this format for the first and subsequent citations of the source. Example for a source (Research plays a vital role in development planning) with three authors, Rasmussen, Hopkins, and Fitzpatrick (2004). Cite this text as Research plays a vital role in development planning (Rasmussen et al., 2004).
• Language: If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, while it may make it more difficult to understand the science, you do not need to correct the English. You should bring this to the attention of the editor, however.

Finally, on balance, when considering the whole article, do the figures and tables inform the reader, are they an important part of the story? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they consistent, e.g. bars in charts are the same width, the scales on the axis are logical.

Previous Research

If the article builds upon previous research does it reference that work appropriately? Are there any important works that have been omitted? Are the references accurate?

Ethical Issues

• Plagiarism: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible
• Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor. Whether it contains ideas and language without properly crediting the sources?
• Other ethical concerns: Do you have any financial conflict with the authors of the manuscript?. Are the author accept the conditions to keep the used data at least for 3 years safe after the publication of the data ?

The reviewers should reject the manuscripts if they observed below faults;

Mismatch with the journal

• The manuscript does not make a contribution to new knowledge in the discipline or the application of knowledge
• Manuscripts that lie outside the stated aims and scope of the journal
• Topics that are not of interest to the journal’s readership
• Manuscripts that do not follow the format specified by the journal

Flaws in study design

• Poorly formulated research question
• Choice of a weak or unreliable method
• Choice of an incorrect method or model
• Inappropriate statistical analysis
• Unreliable or incomplete data
• Inappropriate or sub optimal instrumentation
• Small or inappropriately chosen sample

Poor writing and organization

• Introduction that does not establish the background of the problem studied
• Inadequate description of methods
• Discussion that only repeats the results but does not interpret them
• Insufficient explanation of the rationale for the study
• Insufficient literature review
• Conclusions that do not appear to be supported by the study data

Inadequate preparation of the manuscript

• Failure to follow the journal’s Instructions for Authors
• Sentences that are not clear and concise
• Title, abstract are not persuasive
• Wordiness and excessive use of jargon
• Poor grammar or spelling mistakes
• Poorly designed tables or figures

After reviewing the manuscripts carefully the reviewers should make  their recommendations as below;

1. Rejected due to poor quality, or out of scope
2. Accept without revision
3. Accept but needs revision (either major, moderate or minor)

In the latter case, clearly identify what revision is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised articles.

During the manuscripts evaluation process, the reviewers should follow and fulfill the “Review Form” and it  should be sent to editorial office along with  revised manuscripts.

IF YOU CANNOT JUDGE ALL PARTS, PLEASE, INDICATE WHICH CHAPTERS SHOULD BE REFEREED BY ANOTHER REVIEWER

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Each reviewer must sign a declaration about a conflict of interest. The declaration is included in the reviewer’s form. Reviewers must confirm that there is no conflict of interest between him/her and the author(s) of the reviewed article in respect to: a) direct personal relations (family relationship, legal ties, conflict), b) professional relationship, c) direct scientific collaboration during the last two years prior to doing the review. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts, in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers.

Recommendation

Accept (Scientifically sound. Minor grammatical and spelling errors to be changed by publisher)

Minor Revision (minor scientific amendments or clarification required; and/or English language needs improvement)

Major Revision (significant rewrite required; further experiments required; and/or lacking important information)

Reject (scientifically unsound; unoriginal; and/or not a significant advancement)

8. Journal evaluates the reviews

The EIC or AE of JHPR (handling editor) considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer (final review) so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.

9. The decision is communicated

The EIC sends a decision via online system of JHPR to the corresponding author including any relevant reviewer comments.

10. Next Steps

If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.

International Standards for Reviewers:

• That all manuscripts are reviewed in fairness based on the intellectual content of the paper regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenry nor political values of author(s).
• That any observed conflict of interest during the review process must be communicated to the Editor-in-Chief. Also, all information pertaining to the manuscript is kept confidential and any information that may be the reason for the rejection of publication of a manuscript must be communicated to the Editor-in-Chief.
• Cope Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers is available on the COPE website for more details.