Reviewer Guidelines
The Peer-Review
Process
The main objective of peer-review is to improve the quality of submitted articles. It is an essential component of a journal's publication process for maintaining high-quality standards. At least two potential reviewers review the manuscript submitted to Journal of Essential Oil & Plant Composition (JEOPC).
Reviewers are requested to assess the quality of
the manuscripts and provide recommendations to the editor on the manuscript for
accepting, rejecting or revisions. JEOPC requested to provide authentic,
sincere and positive review comments and criticism for each manuscript in order
to improve the quality of the submitted articles. We are
determined to recognize reviewers' efforts.
The Advantages of Volunteer Reviewers
When
reviewing for JEOPC, the reviewer will:
|
· |
Receive
a thanks mail and reviewer certificate |
|
· |
Be
included in the annual reviewer acknowledgement list. |
|
· |
Receive
reviewer award annually based on outstanding performance |
|
· |
Be
endorsed and verify your review on Web of Science profile. |
|
· |
The
reviewer is eligible for a full waiver based on satisfactory performance of
sincere reviewing. |
|
· |
Develop
scholarly, research, and teaching abilities. |
Confidentiality
Reviewers must maintain their
confidentiality regarding the manuscript's content. They must be aware of
revealing their identity to the authors. After submitting the review report,
the reviewer will be notified by email of the other reviewers' reports. The
review reports and authors' responses will not be published on the journal
website. Reviewers can evaluate the manuscript independently and must complete
the review report form.
Potential Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers
should notify the journal editor if they have a conflict of interest that could
bias the review and influence the report.
Review Process
JEOPC employs a double-blind review system until the
review process is completed. Each reviewer will be invited to review the
manuscript via email or the Journal management system. A title and abstract of
the manuscript will be sent at the time of invitation. After accepting the
review invitation, the reviewer will receive a full manuscript through email or
access by the Journal management system.
Responsibilities of
Reviewers
|
· |
Reviewers
are discouraged to mention their citation of their work and their colleagues
if it is not necessary to improve the quality of the manuscript under review. |
|
· |
The
reviewer must be strict about plagiarism of the article and must notify the
editorial office immediately if anything catches their eyes. |
|
· |
A
reviewer is requested to submit his or her review report within 10 days of
accepting the invitation from the editorial office. If they require
additional time, they must contact the editorial office. |
|
· |
While
reviewing the manuscript, reviewers should not be biased or partial. |
|
· |
Criticism
should not be presented mindlessly and offensive remarks are not acceptable. |
|
· |
The
reviewer's comments cannot be influenced by the reviewer's ethnicity,
national origin, language, race, religion, or place of birth. |
The review report includes:
A summary:
A summary is a brief
paragraph that summarizes the manuscript's main scientific contribution, aim,
and objectives.
The overall evaluation of article: Accept/Minor revision/Major Revision/ Reject in current form, but maybe
resubmitted/Reject.
General comments:
Comments on each
section of the manuscript (title, abstract, introduction, materials and
methods, results and discussion, conclusion and underlining areas of strength
and weakness) must be described clearly in order to response by the authors.
General Comments may focus on the following
suggestions:
Strengths:
|
§ |
Clarity
in abstract |
|
§ |
Scientific
rigor |
|
§ |
Clear
presentation of results |
|
§ |
Comparisons
with previous studies |
|
§ |
Biological
relevance |
|
§ |
Implications
for future research |
|
§ |
Areas
for potential improvement |
|
§ |
Consistency
in presentation |
|
§ |
Subheadings
for chemical composition section |
|
§ |
Consideration
of figure types |
Please take the following into consideration while you read the article:
Title
Does it convey the content of the article clearly?
Abstract
Does it accurately sum up the article's contents?
Introduction
Does it clearly define the issue under consideration and describe the
veracity of the information provided by the author?
The introduction should typically include a synopsis of the background of
the research, an explanation of the research's conclusions, and any additional
findings that are presented for debate.
Materials
and method
The methodology, assumptions, and experiments used in this study should
all be explained.
|
· |
Does
the author describe the data collection process accurately? |
|
· |
Is
the theoretical foundation or reference employed suitable for this study? |
|
· |
Is
the exposure design appropriate for the question's answer? |
|
· |
Is
there enough information for you to replicate the research? |
|
· |
Does
the article mention any of the following procedures? |
|
· |
Are
there any novel approaches? Is there a new way described in detail by the
author? |
|
· |
Is
there adequate sampling? |
|
· |
Have
the tools and materials utilized been sufficiently described? Does the
article exposure indicate what sort of data is captured, as well as the
measurement? |
Results
The author must discuss the findings of his or her study in this section.
It should be well-organized and in a logical order. You must assess if the
right analysis was performed, as well as the usage of statistical techniques.
If you have superior statistical techniques to employ in this study, please
mention with proper citation and the interpretation does not need to be
provided in this part.
Tables
and Pictures
Does it make sense to support the reasoning that was mentioned by
providing data that is clear and easy for readers to understand?
Discussion and
Conclusion
|
· |
Are
the arguments made in this section reasonable and justified by fair results? |
|
· |
Does
the author make any comparisons between the research findings and earlier
ones? |
|
· |
Do
the study findings present in the paper conflict with earlier theories? |
|
· |
Does
the conclusion describe how future scientific research may be improved? |
Specific comments
Reviewer can express
their specific comments to the editor for improving the quality of the
manuscript
|
§ |
Emphasizing
novelty or significance |
|
§ |
Is
there any plagiarism in this paper field that exceeds 20%? |
|
§ |
The
language, grammar, and style of the long sentences |
For further guidance, please
refer to the following documents:
COPE with Ethical Guidelines for
Peer Reviewers. Committee on Publication Ethics. Available online.
Current Science
Publishing invites interested reviewers to join our journal.
Please send us your CV along with your research interest to the
journal office.
Managing
Editor
Current
Science Publishing
E-mail: jeopc@currentsci.com
managing-editor@currentsci.com
jeopc.csp@gmail.com
Editor-in-Chief
This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
License.(CC BY-NC 4.0).