Reviewer Guidelines

We value and trust our peer reviewers from far and wide who assist and assure us that the work published in Aspirant Publications is of the outstanding quality it could be. The peer review process is essential in publishing an impactful article, in which the reviewer’s role is a high priority. Reviewer comments are the main root for an Editor in deciding on an article.

Peer reviewer code of conduct

Aspirant Publications follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. To facilitate and safeguard that peer review at Aspirant Publications is productive and helpful to authors, scholars, and other reviewers, we ask that reviewers:

Study the article completely

Reviewers are requested to study full-length articles and check all associated figures, tables, graphs, flowcharts, and necessary data.

In detail

The review report must contain the points in detail of a full-length manuscript, along with individual points with references where appropriate, so that the author clearly understands and can help with easy improvisation, and should explain your understanding of the manuscript.

Concerns or evaluations

State all concerns or evaluations in your review report, but in a polite aspect. The peer reviewer must remark on the efficacy and limitations of the manuscript, which paves the way to improve and evaluate the quality, relevance, and novelty of the manuscript.

Unbiased

Review comments must be only on information or data from the article. Unbiased review comments are highly appreciated.

The peer reviewer is accountable for thoroughly understanding and assessing a manuscript in their field. The report should contain a constructive assessment of the authors, mainly where revisions are suggested. In a place where reviewers are not interested in authors viewing specific comments, these suggestions can be inserted in confidential comments to the Editorial Management Team.

Reviewer eligibility

Reviewers are chosen based on suggestions from the editorial team and the scope of the manuscript, ensuring that they meet our reviewer criteria. When early-stage researchers may not match some of our eligibility standards but may still hold interest and expertise to review. In such cases, we recommend reviewing the company with an expert reviewer.

Basic principles to which peer reviewers should monitor.

Peer reviewers must:

• Reviewers must agree to review the articles for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can evaluate within a scheduled time.
• If the reviewer has any potential competing interests, then notify the editorial coordinator before you begin to review the manuscript.
• Do not disclose any particulars of a manuscript or its review during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal; reviewers must respect the confidentiality of peer review.
• Do not take or use data/information attained during the peer-review process for their individual or any other being’s or organization’s profit, or to hinder or suspect others.
• State all potential conflicting interests, looking for guidance from the journal’s editorial team for any queries.
• Reviews are stringently not to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, or other traits of the authors, or by any business considerations. 

• With no association, despite the culmination of your review comments, you must consider the manuscript, and any relevant files or data associated with the manuscript as confidential documents. This indicates you must not distribute the work associated with it, nor information about the review, to anyone without prior approval from the editorial management team.

While prospects differ by discipline, some fundamental aspects should be evaluated by reviewers as it is worth considering the categories as the editor and author find the ease of use may consist of:

Review comments classification  

• Publish Unchanged/Accept (Accept the article as it is, devoid of any further review, which leads the article to publication).
• Revision contains two categories

Consider Minor Changes (provide detailed suggestions so that the author can go through and make the changes accordingly)

Consider Major Changes (State the points to be fixed/questionnaire/explanations with an understandable clarification of why this is essential in the review report, so that the author can go through the points and make the changes and answer the aspects accordingly on a point-to-point basis)

• Reject/Manuscript is imperfect or not sufficiently novel (explain the circumstances of your analysis in the report, so that the author can go through)

The final decision/Acceptance

The editor-in-chief or the editorial board members ultimately decide intending to accept or reject the article based on the review comments provided by the peer reviewers. Aspirant Publications plays no role in this decision-making. The Editorial Management Team coordinates with authors on the status of the manuscript, with an electronic mail notification on the final decision of the editor.

Benefits to reviewers

We take the opportunity to appreciate and thank you veraciously on behalf of the journal, editors, and author(s) for the time you have taken to give constructive and significant review comments to improve the article standard, which impacts the systematic community and future generations who progress the research.

Aspirant Publications believes it is important for them to be rewarded with a reviewer certificate and provide discounts for the articles published by the reviewer.