Reviewer Guidelines

 

Reviewer Guidelines

Examine the following questions before accepting or rejecting an offer to review:

  • Is the content relevant to your field of expertise? Accept only if you think you can write a really good review.
  • Are there any potential conflicts of interest that you may have? When you reply, let the editor know about this.
  • Are you free? It can take a lot of effort to review, so be sure you can complete it by the deadline before committing.

Guidelines for IJICT peer review

The reviewer report should be considerably longer than a few short phrases and include a thorough assessment of the proposal. Reports submitted to IJICT do not have to follow a set format; however, it should address the main issues in the article and the weak points that should be evolved by the author. Reviewers are invited to assist writers in making their manuscripts better. The report needs to provide writers with helpful analysis, especially in cases when changes are suggested. Reviewers can submit remarks to the editor-in-chief's secret comments if they would like the writers to not see them.

While standards differ by discipline, reviewers should consider the following fundamental elements:

  • Are the research questions legitimate?
  • Is there enough data in the sample?
  • Is ethical permission and/or consent required, and was the research conducted ethically?
  • Are the study design and techniques suitable for addressing the research question?
  • Are there suitable controls in the experiments?
  • Is the description of the techniques, together with any tools and supplies, specific enough to allow for replication of the study?
  • Are the statistical tests that are applied acceptable and reported correctly?
  • Do the figures and tables correctly depict the results and are they clear?
  • Have the authors' and others' earlier studies been examined, and have the outcomes been contrasted with the present findings?
  • Are there any unsuitable citations, such as ones that don't support the assertion stated or excessive references to the authors' own articles?
  • Are the conclusions supported by the results?
  • Are the research's shortcomings acknowledged?
  • Is the abstract a factual, unbiased overview of the study and findings?
  • Is the language comprehensible and unambiguous?

Reviewer reports must be provided via the article tracking system before the deadline in order to assist authors in receiving reviews in a timely manner. If reviewers are unable to fulfill the deadline, they should get in touch with IJICT so that a new date may be set.

We urge reviewers to concentrate their reports on evaluating the scientific components of the submission objectively, focusing on the methodology's soundness and the data's ability to support the conclusions. Remarks on the work's potential effect and uniqueness are also welcome. We request that reviewers suggest one of the following activities after completing their review:

  • Accepted
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject
  • Unable to Review

Confidentiality

Peer review manuscripts are required to be kept completely secret. The content should not be discussed or shared by reviewers with parties not involved in the peer review process. Reviewers can, however, seek advice from other members of their research group if necessary to protect the confidentiality of the article. Reviewers should specify the colleague(s) they contacted in the 'Comments to the editor' portion of their report, and they should first get in touch with IJICT or the Editor in Chief.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers ought to decline to consider a submission if they:

  • Possess a monetary interest in the task.
  • Had previously discussed the work with the authors.
  • Believe they are unable to be objective.