Welcome to becoming a reviewer with IREVIEW.ONLINE. You have rightly chosen to experience new discoveries firsthand and to correctly influence the quality and successful release of such discoveries.

 

The following are the basic guideline for reviewers:

 

Introduction

Accessing the full content for review

Conflict of Interest

Confidentiality

Fair-mindedness

Review reports

Timeliness

Recommendations

Submitting an evaluation

Rating the work

Useful Forms

Author’s grounds for declining a reviewer’s request

Certificates, Awards and Reward for Reviewers

Agreement

 

Introduction

The evaluation process is a crucial aspect of the processes the author’s work needs to go through. It enables the author to improve on the manuscript and to gain confidence about the release or publication of a work. It will assist supervisors in guiding the authors about the work. It will help sponsors of the work in making certain decisions. In the publication terrine, it helps an editor in making a decision on an article.

Note: We use the term “author” generally to represent the individual who submits a work for review.

IREVIEW.ONLINE operates two evaluation systems: an open evaluation system, and a blind evaluation system. The author chooses the type of evaluation and it is indicated on the web page showing the abstract/summary.

 

 Accessing the full content for review

Every work submitted for review receives a abstract or summary page. The full content of the work may not be available on the abstract or summary page. The reviewer will need to use the available form on the abstract page to accept the review of the work before they can access the full content.

In other cases, the full content may be accessible from the abstract or summary page. In such a case, reviewers should proceed to evaluate the content and submit their evaluations.

 

Before accepting to review a work, reviewers should ensure that:

• the work falls within their area of expertise.
• they can devote the right time to conduct a proper evaluation of the work.

 

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should indicate any competing interest (conflict of interest) that would interfere with giving an objective review report. Reviewers should abstain from reviewing the work is any exist.

 

Confidentiality

Reviewers should treat the works they access for review as confidential and given to them on trust for the sole purpose of giving an objective evaluation. Details of the manuscript and the evaluation process should remain confidential during and after the evaluation process.

Reviewers should not plagiarize the work entrusted to them to evaluate.  Reviewers are not permitted to use information from the work accessed during the evaluation process for their own benefit or for the benefit of any other person or organization, or to the discredit or disadvantage of the authors or others. Reviewers must not use unpublished contents disclosed in submitted manuscripts without the express written consent of the authors. Reviewers may recommend other persons whose experience will be relevant to the work, by informing us and providing their contact details.

 

Fair-mindedness

Reviewers should be objective and conduct their evaluations with honesty and fair-mindedness. Reviewers should not be influenced by:

• The source of the manuscript
• Cultural, religious or political standpoint of the author
• The geographical location of the research or the author
• Gender, race, ethnicity or citizenry of the author

Reviewers should not be bias or hostile, or use accusatory and derogatory remarks.

 

Review reports

When evaluating, reviewers should focus and comment on the following:

• Originality
• Contribution to the field
• Technical quality
• Clarity of presentation
• Depth of research
• Target audience

 

Reviewer should mention the overall strengths and weaknesses of the work.

Reviewers should substantiate their comments with facts and useful arguments.

Reviewers should not rewrite the manuscript; however necessary corrections and suggestions for improvements should be made. Reviewers should also proffer solutions on how the demanded improvements can be achieved.

In general, review reports should be:

1. accurate,
2. objective,
3. constructive,
4. insightful

 

Timeliness

Reviewers should only accept manuscripts that they can dedicate appropriate time for reviewing. Thus, reviewers should review and provide their evaluation within the expected time.

 

Recommendations

Reviewers will be required to give a recommendation to publishing houses, regulatory bodies, or authorities that may need to take actions on the work. Reviewers’ recommendation should be either:

• Accept
• Requires minor corrections
• Requires moderate revision
• Requires major revision
• Reject

Reviewers should substantiate their recommendation with facts.

 

Reviewers may give other recommendations to the author, such as:

1. Specific references for citation, but should not require citing their papers, unless it is justified.
2. Other materials for more reading and research, including providing available web links where possible.
3. General guide on how the author may proceed with the work, if it is good to go.

 

Submitting an evaluation

An evaluation form will be available at the bottom of each abstract page. Reviewers will need to note and return to the specific abstract page of the work they are evaluating to submit their evaluation using the Evaluation form on that page. There is an option to subscribe to the comment feeds of each abstract page of interest so as to get updates on the progress of the work. 

 

Rating the work

Reviewers will need to rate the work with a score. Review stars, like or emojis may also be available to use for rating.

 

Useful forms

Different online forms are available to assist reviewers go about their evaluation. Using these forms allows organization and order during the evaluation process.  Reviewers should use these forms when the need arises:

1. Review request form: This form is usually available beneath the abstract page of every submission. Reviewers should fill this simple form to accept the review of a work.
2. Evaluation submission form: This form is used by reviewers to submit their evaluation after reviewing a work.
3. Evaluation termination request form: This is used by reviewers to decline a manuscript they had previously accepted for review. Reviewers should present adequate reasons for using this form.
4. Colleague recommendation form: This is used by reviewers or site visitors to recommend a colleague as an experienced candidate to review a work.
5. Re-evaluation submission form: this form may be used by reviewers to submit another evaluation for a work they had previously reviewed, after it has been revised by the author.
6. Make an offer form: Reviewers may use this form to make an offer to the authors, if they are unwilling to review the work free of charge or if an amount offered on the abstract page is not sufficient. 

 

Author’s grounds for declining a reviewer’s request

1. If the authors feels the reviewer does not have sufficient experience or expertise to review the work
2. If the author feels the reviewer may have a potential conflict of interest that may affect the end result of the evaluation.
3. Some evaluations may be reserved solely for reviewers from a particular country, region, language, university etc. However, these criteria should be stated on the web page beneath the abstract of the work.

 

Certificates, Awards and Reward for Reviewers

Certificate:

1. Reviewers are awarded a certificate when they register as reviewers and complete their profiles.
2. A letter of attestation is also awarded to a reviewer after properly completing each evaluation.
3. Honorary certificates shall accompany specific awards we will be granting to reviewers occasionally if they qualify.

Awards:

1. IREVIEW.ONLINE will conduct different award programmes at different times of the year; an example of such awards among others is Reviewer of the year. Deserving reviewers will receive such awards on different bases such as number of completed reviews, quality of review, timeliness, ratings from authors, badges collected, reward points accumulated and more.
2. Reviewers will receive other honorary awards as they reach certain success marks in their reviews.

Rewards:

1. IREVIEW.ONLINE do not pay reviewers before or after undertaking the review of a work. Reviewers are encouraged to review a work voluntarily. For any work reviewers cannot review free of charge, they may state an amount they require for the evaluation by using the Make an offer form beneath the abstract page. The authors will be alerted when such offers are made, and will respond they are interested.
2. IREVIEW.ONLINE appreciates the sacrifice of reviewers in other ways. Certificates and awards have been mentioned above, however reviewers also receive a 20% waiver for most services.
3. As IREVIEW.ONLINE partners with different publishers/Organizations, reviewers will be alerted of programmes and waivers that will be beneficial to them.
4. IREVIEW.ONLINE gives authors the opportunity to appreciate reviewers in any way they can, but it is optional.
5. Reward points accumulate for reviewers when they submit their evaluations. Reward points also accumulate when reviewers receive a good rating from an author for a job well done. These points are generally used to get awards, or may be used to pay for our services.

 

Agreement

By registering as a reviewer or accepting to review any work on this platform, the reviewers agree to the requirements and terms stated on this page.