About Us
Peer Review Process

  

The peer review process can be summarized as below:
 
Manuscript Submission: The corresponding or submitting author submits the manuscript to the journal. This is usually via our online system eJManager.
 
Editorial Office Assessment: The journal checks the manuscript’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the manuscript is not assessed at this point.
 
Review by the Chief Editor: The Chief Editor checks that the manuscript is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the manuscript may be rejected without being reviewed any further.
 
Chief Editor Assigns an Editor: The Chief Editor will assign manuscript to any one of the Editor who handle the peer review.
 
Invitation to Reviewers: The handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained – commonly this is two,
 
Response to Invitations: Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.
 
Review is Conducted: The reviewer sets time aside to read the manuscript several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the manuscript without further work. Otherwise, they will read the manuscript several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.
 
Journal Evaluates the Reviews: The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.
 
The Decision is Communicated: The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. The comments are anonymous.
 
Further Steps:If accepted, the manuscript is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the manuscript was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.
 
For more detail email to contactnjcm@gmail.com

.