Reviewer Guidelines

Scientific Archives’s Mission

Scientific Archives is an open access, peer reviewed publisher with a motto of redefining science through gold open access model. Driven by the belief that modern science has the power to improve humanity, we publish impactful research and help researchers make new discoveries, collaborate with their colleagues, & give them the knowledge they need to find funding. Scientific Archives has been an active part of the global scholarly community, supporting open research that transforms society, and dissemination of pivotal research. Being one of the emerging publishers, we are committed to permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research.

It is our great honor to partner with you, and this page aims to provide you with some guidance on your role as editor. Scientific Archives assists you timely in every aspect of fulfilling your editorial responsibilities.

Scientific Archives & Open Access

“Removing access barriers to this literature will accelerate research, enrich education, share the learning …, and lay the foundation for uniting humanity …”— The Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), December 1-2, 2001.

“We define open access as a comprehensive source of human knowledge and cultural heritage that has been approved by the scientific community.”— The Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, October 22, 2003.

Open Access— Making research outputs freely available to all, is clearly the way to overcome the issues surrounding access to research material. Respecting the ‘statement of principle, strategy, and a commitment to Open Access’ by BOAI and Berlin Declaration, Scientific Archives is here to empower researchers with its rapid open access publication.

Scientific Archives— with the commitment to Open Access to scholarly publications, is supporting and inspiring the scientific community worldwide.

Innovation at Scientific Archives

By testing and learning from our open access publishing practice, we continue to evolve and innovate at what we offer. Here are some of our innovations at glance.

1. Rapid review process: Unlike the traditional review process which will take months to year to complete review process, Scientific Archives follows rapid review process which allows lesser turnaround times comparatively.
2. Continuous publication: Scientific Archives’s new practice allows article to publish immediately upon acceptance in a fully citable version along with the DOI, rather than waiting for all articles of the issue to be ready.
3. Article level dissemination: It is evident that with Open Access in to the stream, publishing giants have lost their way in promoting each article. Scientific Archives’s dedicated marketing team ensures that each article gets deserved distribution and circulation.

More details on special features of Scientific Archives journals are available here.

Your role as Reviewer

Scientific Archives, as a publisher has greatest responsibility towards the authors, journal readers, and scientific community. Peer review is an essential part of the publication process. All manuscripts submitted to Scientific Archives journals are thoroughly peer-reviewed by external reviewers. 

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Confidentiality: Material under review should remain strictly confidential; they should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the review process unless approved by the Editor. Reviewers should not retain copies of submitted manuscripts; and all the communication of the review process will be kept confidential.

Competence: Peer review is carried out by specialists who are fully competent in the subject matter. Reviewers are required to have adequate expertise to provide an authoritative assessment of the article. Reviewers should be honest with the editor about their level of expertise, especially when their expertise on the subject of the manuscript is limited.

Constructive critique: Reviewer’s responsibility is to identify strengths and provide constructive comments to help the author resolve weaknesses in the work. Reviewer comments should highlight the positive features of the article under review, constructively point out any challenging parts, and list any modifications that are required. Although reviews are confidential, reviewers may ask to provide two sets of comments: one for the author and the other for the editor only.

Impartiality and Integrity: Reviewer should not take scientific, financial, personal, or other advantage of material available through the peer review. The comments and conclusions drawn by reviewer should be based on the objects of the article but not of personal or professional bias. The articles should be reviewed solely on the paper’s scientific merit, originality, and quality of writing without regard to race, ethnic origin, sex, religion, or citizenship of the authors.

Disclosure of conflict of interest: Reviewers should refrain themselves from the manuscripts in which they have/may have conflicts of interest in performing the review. The reviewer can simply decline the invitation or discuss their concern with the handling editor/editorial office. Potential conflicts the journal considers are the ones resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, institutions, or companies associated with the manuscript.

Duties of Reviewers

• Reviewers must read the journal guidelines and provide their complete information to the editor.
• When assigned a manuscript for review, the reviewer must check the scope of the article and if the article is not related to their expertise then they must decline the assignment.
• Reviewers should agree to review a manuscript, only if they are able to complete the review on time. However they may request an extension.
• If a reviewer feels that he/she is not able to complete the review on time due to sudden change in circumstances then he/she must notify the editor. In such cases, the reviewer may ask for an extension.
• Reviewers should read the complete manuscript along with the supplementary files (if any) and they should contact the editorial office if any file required for the review is missing.
• Reviewer should not contact authors directly under any circumstances.
• Reviewers must notify the journal immediately if they find any scientific misconduct in the article related to originality of the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, or similarity with another article.
• Reviewers should not ask the authors to cite their own papers or associate’s papers to increase the visibility or citations.

Benefits for Reviewers: Scientific Archives gives credit to reviewers who contributed with their time. As most of these positions are unpaid, the following are the important benefits.

• Reviewing unpublished papers gives you a preview of the most recent research, so it helps you keep up with the rapidly expanding field of expertise.
• The experience of reviewing and identifying the strength and weaknesses in others’ research makes you more likely to adopt the strengths and avoid the weaknesses in your own.
• Acting as a peer reviewer will be beneficial to your career and can make a significant difference when it comes to employment, promotions, research and funding opportunities, and even your own publication plans.
• Reviewers will be rewarded with a position on an editorial or advisory board. Reviewers may even become an associate or chief editor for the journal.
• If the journal adapted open labelled review process, the reviewer names along with their review suggestions will be published along with the article (only if author & reviewer agrees for it).
• Reviewers will be acknowledged and included in the journal’s annual acknowledgment of reviewers.
• Reviewers will be rewarded timely with discounts/waivers for publishing an article in the journals.
• Reviewers may create a profile on Publons and have their reviewing activity automatically added for participating journals. Profiles on Publons can also be integrated with ORCID.
• Reviewers will be acknowledged with a certificate of recognition from the editor.

If a reviewer is unsure about the policies for enlisting the help of others in the review process, he or she should ask the editor. Reviewers are requested to communicate with editor/managing editor of the journal for more details.