Reviewer's Guidelines & Conflict of Interest

JSCOPUA Journal of Applied Statistical Research (JASR) ISSN 3104-4794 follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers set out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the double-blind peer-review process. Peer reviewers should: 

• only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise prerequisite to carry out a proper assessment, and which they can assess on time
• respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal
• not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others
• declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest
• not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations
• be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making slanderous or derogatory personal comments
• acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing, and promptly
• recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct

The following situations are considered conflicts and should be avoided:

• Co-authoring publications with at least one of the authors in the past two years
• Being colleagues within the same section/department or similar organizational unit in the past two years
• Supervised doctoral work of the author(s) or being supervised by the author(s)
• Received professional or personal benefit resulting from the review
• Have a personal relationship (e.g., family, close friend) with the author(s)
• Have a direct or indirect financial interest in the paper being reviewed

Step One

Respond to the invitation as soon as you can – a delay in your decision slows down the review process and means more waiting for the author.

Step Two

If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors. Your review will be managed via the OJS online login portal. To access the paper and deliver your review, click on the link in the invitation email you received, which will bring you to the submission/reviewing system.

Step Three

Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. It will also aid the author and allow him/her to improve the manuscript. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any demeaning remarks or personal details, including your name (unless the journal you are invited to review for employs open peer review). When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor will likely use for classifying the article.  Bear in mind that there will be an opportunity to direct separate comments to both the editor and author. The editor ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the article. The editor will weigh all views and may call for another opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision.

Step Four

Do not forget that even after finalizing your review, you must treat the article and any linked files or data like confidential documents. This means you must not share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Finally, we take the opportunity to thank you sincerely on behalf of the editors and author(s) for the time you have taken to give your valuable input to the article.