Guidelines for Reviewers :

This guide is mostly about the principles for reviewers to use when called upon to assist us in maintaining high scientific standards for the GRT. Primary emphasis is to help our reviewers to understand how to approach reviews for GRT.

The decision about publication is entirely the editor’s responsibility. The editor’s role includes that of being a moderator. The editors will enforce ethical standards of behaviour in the review process.

Golden Research Thoughts is a multidisciplinary research journal, published monthly, is double blind reviewed. In order to keep the process fair and impartial, we use a blind process within the peer review system. Peer review helps scholars maintain communication within the academic community. Peer review is a recognized and critical component of the overall publication process that confers ‘added value’ to a submitted paper. Reviewers should contribute their best to maintain the high standards of research. Usually no monetary compensation is, or should be, provided.

A reviewer should treat a manuscript being reviewed as he/she would want his/her own paper treated, i.e. provide a critique that is positive critical yet objective and balanced and is returned promptly. The reviewer’s job is to make sure that the best possible research appears in print.

In case of articles with grammatical errors, if the idea conveyed is novel, the article can be accepted after suitable revision.

A reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript should refuse to review the manuscript. Reviewers should refuse to review a manuscript where there are possible conflicts of interest.

Being invited to review a manuscript is an honor not only because you are being recognised for your eminence in a particular area of research but also because of the responsibility and service you provide to the journal and academic community. Proper reviewer conduct is essential for making the peer review process valuable and the journal trustworthy. If you have already reviewed the manuscript for another journal, please inform the editors.

Reviewers Selection :

The selection of appropriate and responsive reviewers is important to the success of the review process. We select a reviewer for a particular manuscript based on many factors including expertise, reputation, specific recommendation of author and academic editors and the professional editors own knowledge of reviewers performance.

As part of an editorial procedure, we regularly confer with potential reviewers before sending them manuscript to review. Reviewers should bear in mind that even their initial message or conversation contain confidential information which should be regarded as such.

Timely Review :

GRT believes that efficient editorial processes that result in timely publication provides a valuable service both to author and to the scientific community at large. We therefore request that reviewers respond promptly, usually within a week of receipt of manuscript. If reviewers need more time, we request that they contact us promptly so that we can keep the author informed and if necessary assign alternate reviewers.

Responsibilities of Reviewers :

• The reviewer should provide an honest critical assignment of the research.
• They should maintain confidentiality about the existence and substance of the manuscript.
• The reviewer should not indulge in plagiarism.
• The reviewer should always avoid or disclose any conflict of interest.
• The reviewer should accept manuscript for review only in his/her area of expertise.
• Reviewers should be author friendly.

http://www.aygrt.net/Guidelines_for_Reviewers.aspx