All manuscripts submitted to Mak Periodical Library are subject to single blind peer review process (reviewers know the author’s identity, but not vice versa) prior to publication.

What is Peer review Process? How does peer review work?

Peer review is the central pillar of trust of researchers by which the quality of research is judged. It is designed to assess the validity, quality and often the originality of articles for publication. All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff to ensure that it conforms to the submission criteria, before being forwarded to the Editor. To save time for Editors, peer-reviewers and authors, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for the formal review process. Usually the peer review process is done by one Editor and two or more reviewers. Those papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest (or) otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review. The Editor (or) Chief Editor reserves the right to reject or to return the manuscript to the author(s) for additional changes.

The Peer reviewer: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and experience. We check with potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review. Anonymous peer reviewers are the best way to get honest opinions on manuscripts. We recommend our authors, editors and reviewers to disclose any conflicts of interest (COIs) that may skew the fairness of the publishing process.

Reviewer selection: Editors usually select researchers that are experts in the same subject area as the paper. We check with potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review.

Editors usually select reviewers based on a few criteria:

• Qualifications (Masters/PhD – depending on subject area)

• The number of papers they have published in their given area of expertise

• How well those papers have been cited

• Recommendations from other researchers/reviewers they know or have worked with

• On their reputations in the specific field of the article

We may ask authors to recommend suitable reviewers on submission of their manuscript. When recommending reviewers, the following points should be considered:

• Authors should not recommend reviewers with whom they have a conflict of interest, for example, a close collaborator or colleague.

• Recommended reviewers should not be at the same institute as any of the authors listed on the manuscript.

• Institutional email addresses should be provided for recommended reviewers, wherever possible.

Once enough reviewers have been selected, then the manuscript will move onto the next stage. Reviewers should treat the review process as being stricter and confidential.

Reviewers Guidelines:

• If you receive a manuscript that does not match to your research profile please notify the editor

• Reviewers are requested to disclose the Conflicts of Interest (COIs)

• Should not be discussed with anyone not directly involved in the review process

• Please do not contact the author directly.

• Should not disclose the reviewer’s identities to the authors or to other colleagues since they may be asked to comment on the criticisms of other referees and may then find it difficult to be objective.

• A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document

• Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author

• Please contact the editorial office if you require an extension to the review deadline

Possible Outcomes of Peer Review:

After the reviewers receive a paper from the editor, they read it closely and provide individual critiques, usually within the time frame. Each reviewer may recommend that the paper be rejected, revised and resubmitted, or accepted.

• Accept without any changes (acceptance): The journal will publish the paper in its original form

• Accept with minor revisions (acceptance): The journal will publish the paper and asks the author to make small corrections. This is typically the best outcome that authors should hope for

• Accept after major revisions (conditional acceptance): The journal will publish the paper provided the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors

• Revise and resubmit (conditional rejection): The journal is willing to reconsider the paper in another round of decision making after the authors make major changes

• Reject the paper (outright rejection): The journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions

Peer reviewers’ comments and recommendations are an essential guide to inform the editor’s decision on a manuscript. If the reviewers suggest that the paper should be revised and resubmitted, they will leave detailed comments concerning the revisions that should be made. When the reviewers have all returned their comments (made directly on the manuscript or in a separate document), the editor makes a preliminary decision about the manuscript. The editor strips out the identity of the reviewers and sends their review comments about the manuscript to the author.

When a Revised Paper is Received:

• Minor changes will usually be assessed directly by the editor

• If significant revisions were requested, the editor will usually return the manuscript to the original reviewers (unless they opted out of this)

• Rarely, the editor may invite comments from a new reviewer – the editor should explain why this fresh review is sought. It is important new reviewers respect previous review comments and the efforts the author has made to revise the paper

The revised manuscript should be accompanied by a Response to Reviewers Comments Letter that includes a point-by-point response to reviewer’s comments and an explanation of how the manuscript has been revised. If the manuscript was accepted with modifications, it is then up to the author to make changes until the editor is satisfied that the reviewers’ reservations are met.

When the editors have reached a final decision on the paper, they notify the corresponding author by email.

Fast Publication Process:

Our few journals are offering Fast Track Review Process. We aim to offer you the fastest possible speed of publication, without compromising on the quality of our peer-review process. Our Fast Track service is the fastest way to publish, quicker than any competitor; Support and guidance from our expert editors, every step of the way. If authors are interested in our Fast Track Review Process they can choose it. In recognition of the time constraints of the authors we are offering a Fast Track Review by paying a remuneration to the reviewer on completion of their review. Online Publication of the article is relying on the author’s response to the Galley Corrections.