Reviewership: The reviewers are essential part of the peer-review process and are important benchmarks for quality publications. Although sometimes tedious and time consuming, reviewing a manuscript is also a privilege.
Pre-acceptance Obligations: Reviewers are expected to only accept to review the manuscript when the scope of the research/study falls within his/her areas of expertise and that they have sufficient time to submit the report timely.
Conflict of Interest and Willingness: Reviewers shall decline to review the manuscript if there is any conflict of interest, the study is beyond the knowledge or they are unable to submit the evaluation in time. They shall notify the Editors at their earliest convenience and can/shall suggest alternative reviewers. Moreover, we ask reviewers to inform the journal Editor if they hold a conflict of interests that may prejudice the review report, either in a positive or negative way. Reviewers who are invited to assess a manuscript they previously reviewed for another journal should not consider this as a conflict of interest in itself. In this case, reviewers should feel free to let us know if the manuscript has been improved or not compared to the previous version.
Confidentiality and Anonymity: Reviewers should keep the content of the manuscript, including the abstract, confidential. Reviewers must inform the Editorial Office if they would like a student or colleague to complete the review on their behalf. Reviewers should be careful not to reveal their identity to the authors, either in their comments or in metadata for reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format.
Our journals follow double-blinded review in which names of the reviewers are not disclosed to authors, and names and affiliation of author(s) are also kept anonymous. Reviewers shall only access the submitted manuscripts for evaluation of quality and peer-review process. They shall not disclose any contents (full or partial) in any media (electronic or print) before the publication of the material or without prior written consent of the authors. Any idea or concept generated through the submitted manuscript shall not be used for personal benefits or financial gain.
Objectivity: Reviewers are requested to comment on scientific contents, appropriateness of the study and value of the outcome. They are requested to not to assess the manuscripts based on race, gender, geographical origin, religion, and ethnicity and on any other personal or commercial interests.
Meeting Standards: Reviewers shall adhere to the criteria set by the journal. Any comments on competing interests, duplication of publication, unethical practice or dubious act shall be communicated to the Editor in the “Confidential Comments to the Editor” section in the Online Review Report system. In case the Online Review Report system is not functional, the same comments should be sent by email.
Timely Review Reports: The Grassroots Institute aims to provide an efficient and high-quality publishing service to authors and to the scientific community. We ask reviewers to assist by providing review reports in a timely manner. Please contact the Editorial Office if you require an extension to the review deadline.
Some benefits of being a reviewer are as under:
The Grassroots Institute strives hard towards the spread of scientific knowledge, and the credibility of the published article completely depends upon effective peer reviewing process. Reviewing of manuscript is an important part in the process of publication. Reviewers are asked to make an evaluation and provide recommendations to ensure the scientific quality of the manuscript is on par with our standards. Reviewers are not expected to rewrite a paper. The reviewers are requested to provide authentic, positive review comments and critics for the respective manuscript. A reviewer has to review the articles received from the Editorial Office or the Editor within the specifically mentioned timeline.
Please rate the following aspects of the manuscript:
Manuscripts submitted to our journals should meet the highest standards of publication ethics:
If reviewers become aware of any scientific misconduct or fraud, plagiarism or any other unethical behavior related to the manuscript, they should raise these concerns with the Editor immediately.
Please provide an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript as follows:
Note that your recommendation is visible only to journal Editors, not to the authors.
Review reports should contain:
The journals of The Grassroots Institute follow several standards and guidelines, including those from the COPE, ACAP, TOP (data transparency and openness), PRISMA (systematic reviews and meta-analyses), ARRIVE (reporting of in vivo experiments) and Helsinki Declaration. See the Publication Standards page or contact the Editorial Office for more details. Reviewers familiar with the guidelines should report any concerns they have about their implementation. Reviewers must not recommend citation of work by themselves or close colleagues when it is not clearly necessary to improve the quality of the manuscript under review.
Double blind peer review is an essential part in the publication process of our journals. We try to maintain high quality standards for its published papers. Reviewing is often an unseen and unrewarded task. We are striving to recognize the efforts of reviewers in a number of manners. If you are interested in reviewing articles for one or more of our journals, please register on the link “Become a Reviewer”.
The Editors of the respective journal will send you a notification once your application is approved. Manuscripts submitted to our journals are reviewed by at least two experts. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and to provide a recommendation to the Editor on whether a manuscript can be accepted, requires revisions or should be rejected. We ask invited reviewers to:
As part of the assessment, reviewers will be asked:
Manuscript reviewers are vital to the publication process, and as a reviewer you will gain valuable experience in scientific publishing. We invite you to become a reviewer of our journals. In order to provide a good review, a thoughtful and well-balanced report with suggested improvements for our authors, reviewers must be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscript thoroughly.
If you are interested in being a reviewer for the journal, please join us by submitting your application online. Please submit the application by email. Click the following link:
Go to Top