آموزش وردپرس | قالب وردپرس | افزونه وردپرس

Peer-Review Process

peer-review processAll papers of the journal are peer-reviewed by two independent reviewers. Acceptance is granted when both reviewers’ recommendations are positive. Collections of papers from conferences may be considered peer reviewed as well, if the original presentations were “invited” or examined by experts before being accepted. Journal issues will be made available online for download (Section: IJCSWN Publication Archives Volumes). After the initial evaluation, the  new manuscripts are sent two referees which are determined editor and/or editorial board. If necessary, the number of referees can be increased by editor or Editorial Board. The referees are chosen from referee board according to their expertise. Referees are asked to evaluate the manuscript’s originality, methodology, contribution to the literature, presentation of results and support for the conclusions, and appropriate referencing of previous relevant studies. Referees might accept the manuscript, reject the manuscript or might require a revision for style and/or content.  When a revision is required by the referee or referees, the author(s) are to consider the criticism and suggestions offered by the referees, and they should be sent back the revised version of the manuscript in 30 days. Revised manuscripts returned after one month will be considered as a new submission and peer-review process is started from the beginning. Referees may request more than one revision of a manuscript. Manuscripts which are not accepted for publication are not re-sent to their authors.
 

Peer-review purpose: 

1. To help select quality articles for publication (filter out studies/research that have been poorly conceived, designed, and executed) with the selection being based upon:

  •     The scientific merit and validity of the  new article and its methodology
  •     The relevance of the article – select work that will be the greatest interest of the readership

2. To improve the manuscript whenever possible.

3. To check against malfeasance/dishonesty within the scientific and research community.
4. Provide editors with evidence to make judgments as to whether articles meet the selection criteria for their particular publication.