Reviewer views are determinant of the publication quality of JOSAM. This method is fundamental to the objective review of scientific studies and is preferred by many scientific journals. All manuscripts submitted to JOSAM are blind reviewed according to the steps below:
Blind Review Method
JOSAM uses the double-blind review method in the review process of all studies. In this method the identities of the authors and reviewers are confidential.
Initial Review Process
The studies submitted to JOSAM are reviewed by the editors first. At this stage, the studies which are not related to the journal's aim and scope, weak in terms of language and wording, lack originality, contain critical scientific mistakes, and do not meet the publishing criteria are rejected. The authors of such studies are informed a week following the submission date. The studies deemed acceptable, on the other hand, are submitted to a field editor related to the subject of study that the work focuses on.
In the pre-review process, the field editors evaluate the introduction, method, findings, results, and discussion parts of the studies in detail with respect to the publishing policies, prerequisities, and scope of the journal as well as originality. As a result of this process, those studies that are found unacceptable are returned within two weeks at the latest together with the field editor's report. And the studies which are deemed appropriate are assigned to reviewers.
Peer Reviewer Selection
Each manuscript will be evaluated by at least two reviewers. Reviewers are chosen by their experience and involvement in some part of the subject. The most alluring reviewers distinguish the qualities and shortcomings of the submitted paper and investigate it from various perspectives. The companion commentators are made a request to peruse and break down the allotted composition and give a composed sentiment of its quality, curiosity, importance, and appropriateness for distribution in JOSAM. Reviewers must dissect and remark on the paper, as well as give feelings about general concerns, for example, clearness and nature of the written work, legitimacy of the logical approach, and whether the article gives new data.
Moral Guidelines for Journal Peer Reviewers
At the point when a chosen individual acknowledges an associate inspecting task, the reviewer verifiably consents to the moral guidelines that are normally acknowledged in biomedical distributing. Moral rules for commentators, creators, and editors are accounted for by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in the 'Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals' accessible from www.icmje.org.
Reviewers for JOSAM must consent to:
- Respect the review's due date. Consider with receptive outlook developments or methodologies unique in relation to those of one's own.
- Give an adjusted investigation focused not exclusively to distinguish the qualities and shortcomings of the paper, yet in addition on giving valuable input to the creators to enhance their original copy, without being excessively reproachful of minor focuses.
- Evade logical unfortunate behavior, for example, the misappropriation of protected innovation.
- Every composition ought to be dealt with as a to a great degree private report.
- The security of the creators' thoughts should dependably be ensured.
- Coordinate remarks about moral concerns privately with the editors.
- Reaching an author with inquiries concerning the composition isn't permitted.
- All scrutinizes, including the last mentioned, must be accounted for in the composed study.
- Announce any irreconcilable circumstance (genuine or saw) recognized to the supervisor before the finish of the survey. Only one out of every odd potential clash requires a dismissal.
- Reject a task if the accompanying clashes are available: Financial interests (e.g. paid consultancies, stock property), critical expert or individual connections or competitions, animosity toward pondering question/approach, political or extraordinary intrigue affiliations (e.g. religious or profound feelings that contention with the original copy theme).
Potential reviewers are reached by email, which contains the original copy title, dynamic, and task due date. The chosen commentator acknowledges or decreases the task within 7 days. The inability to answer within the recommended time will be dealt with as an understood dismissal. It is satisfactory to propose a broadened due date when the given due date (as a rule a month from the assignment acknowledgment date) can't be met. The chosen reviewers typically have broad experience as employees, reviewers, and distributed creators. This choice is constantly well thoroughly considered, and we urge such potential reviewers to consider the task on the off chance that they can make a commitment to some part of the work.
As a reviewer, we ask you simply to identify the following:
- Major flaws in the methodology used
- Major flaws in the data presented
- Misleading or false conclusions
You do not need to comment on any language or grammatical errors in the manuscript – if the paper is accepted, we will perform a high-quality, three-step “technical” edit.
To be accepted and published as an article, it should fulfill the criteria given below:
It does not involve any ethical violation,
It has a clear message to be conveyed to the scientific community,
It is written in an intelligible fashion,
It possesses structural and logical integrity:
- The manuscript has a straight and clear storyline
- Reasons for doing the study are explained in the Introduction section
- Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are carried out adequately and described in sufficient detail
- Conclusion of the article is drawn directly from the findings of the study
- Conclusion section answers the research question (aim) addressed in the Introduction section
- Sections of the manuscript, including the abstract, do not contradict each other. The manuscript has internal consistency.
After the review process has finished and a sufficient number of comments has been gotten, the related editor settles on an official conclusion about the original copy (acceptance, revision, or decline) in view of thought of all the reviewers' remarks, general scrutinize, and other outside variables (e.g., the article is reliable with the Journal reason, comparative articles as of late distributed, number of acknowledged articles anticipating production, the potential effect of the article, and so forth). Editors may counsel each other when settling on the choice. A choice condensing the suppositions of editors and reviewers will be sent to the corresponding author.
JOSAM Publisher and Editors follow established industry best practices (e.g. ICMJE's Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, and COPE’s Guidelines for retracting articles) for the handling of corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern.