Manuscript reviewers are vital to the publication process. ARCC relies on the peer review process to maintain the quality of articles and the journals.
Ensuring that all the articles published in a scientific journal follow the majority of the publication standards largely depends on the shoulders of a reviewer. This process of reviewing not only requires a lot of scientific knowledge about a certain subject but also demands a lot of commitment to devote a significant chunk of time to deal with the process of reviewing. Reviewing the manuscripts to write a comprehensive and unbiased report is chiefly determined by the reviewer. At times, a reviewer has to distinguish the manuscripts so that any type of invalid research can be avoided for publishing. This is worthwhile for the scientific community and the authorship. At ARCC journals, a reviewer works not only with the editor and author but also with the other peer-reviewers who work at the same research or manuscripts. Managing the proper balance of coordination with all the factors is indispensable. Therefore, the peer-reviewing requires significant time and structural procedures of reviewing. Fitting comments and suggestions from the reviewers make the researched article well-defined and worthwhile for the readers.
Reviewers are primarily employed to go through the research papers submitted by the authors for publishing. Their prime object is to find discrepancies in those papers. They give their valuable opinions in an article. They have to assess the manuscripts thoroughly. If there are some changes or enhancements required for the journal, they have to report it to the author in their written report about the changes. Their feedback on the author’s works is required to be unbiased and devoid of any conflict of interest. Any unethical demerits found in the manuscripts need to be reported to the author with the proper and sufficient recommendations.
The peer-reviewers have to take it into account that their suggestions and opinions should not be very much personal, informal and unprofessional. Moreover, any reporting about the article should not be so much particular as there may be much criticism than opinions.
Under this process of reviewing two major perspectives are important to be looked after - the language and the confidentiality of the article. Most of the authors always meditate much about his works of scholarly knowledge. The secrecy of the author’s works is paramount. Any unethical use or the revelation of the manuscripts without the consent of the author is somewhat derogatory. It is next to the breach of confidence that the author maintains in the reviewer. Second, if the researched papers based on any scientific theory are not well-drafted in the article so it seems drab for the readers to read.
The role of the peer-reviewer suggests that the reviewer has his responsibility towards the editor. As the editor is an important decision-maker of the journal publication so the reviewer is required to ensure he facilitates him in forming profound articles at the best of his capacity. The time is the key in journal publication as there are millions of researches that are submitted every day. Therefore timely notification to the editor by the reviewer makes it easy for the editor to complete the article in time.
The journal publication has some clear set of guidelines by the various reputed institutions. These guidelines direct the reviewer to report immediately to the editor if there is a financial conflict of interest. These directives from these guidelines advise the reviewer to provide insightful and constructive views. Even if there is any critique found in the reviewing documents, it should be informative and helpful. This can be done by providing additional information to the editor with the proposed references. This can be helpful for the journal editor to bring about quality articles for the readers. Therefore recommendations based on scientific merits should be made while remaining in the scope of the publication guidelines.