Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author also assist the author in improving the paper and revised it based on the given comments .

Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action, but they should bear in mind that the other reviewers of a particular paper may have different technical expertise and/or views, and the Journal’s editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice.  The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editors with the information on which decision should be based.  Setting out the arguments for and against publication is often more helpful to the editors than a direct recommendation one way or the other.

Abstract of the submitted papers’ must be send to the selected Reviewers while inviting them to Review. This is to inform the Reviewers on the area of the research and the content of the submitted paper. Reviewers should be prompt with their reviews. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself/herself from the review process. The initial given time to the Reviewers for their review is 3 to 4 weeks. This can be extended based on the Reviewers’ requirement due to Editor’s decision.

QJOES follows a double-blind peer-review process, whereby authors do not know reviewers and vice versa. Peer review is fundamental to the scientific publication process and the dissemination of sound science.

The manuscript must be send to the Reviewers in anonymous status (without name or any sign of the Author’s identity). Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor. The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication; reviewers must treat it as confidential. It should not be retained or copied. Also, reviewers must not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the Executive Editor.

Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers will be asked to fill in the QJOES Evaluation Form to give their complete comments on the paper for its originality, quality, and research validity. Moreover, reviewers required stating in their review report using "Manuscript Evaluation Form" if the article fulfils the criteria below which are based on QJOES archiving policy on Review criteria:

i)Theoretical/Conceptual Soundness:  The article should make reference to previous research or theories in the reported study. The theory, if any, behind the research should be logically applied and thoroughly justified.  It should correctly interpret and appropriately synthesize relevant prior research. And finally, are the hypotheses, if any, derived from the theory to be tested, clearly stated, and are they actually tested.

ii) Methodological Soundness: Qualitative or quantitative empirical studies reported on should have a systematic and coherent method of study. The article should include a clear account of the study's project background, objectives, subjects, methodology (methods should be the most recent, if not, the relevancy/ appropriateness should be questioned), data analysis, and conclusions. The reviewer should comment accurately and constructively upon the quality of the author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations. Are the appropriate analytical techniques applied to the data collected, and the results correctly interpreted? Are the conclusions and/or implications correctly derived from the research findings?

iii) Contribution:  Does the article advance knowledge in/of the discipline? Are the findings and their implications noteworthy? Is the paper of interest to many people in the field or at least one segment of it (e.g., academics, practitioners, public policy makers, consumers etc.)? The article should also discuss the implications of the reported project, and/or report on any conclusions or products which may be of relevance to future research, development or practice.

iv) Communication: The article should be of an acceptable quality in terms of linguistic accuracy, clarity and coherence. Is the article clearly written and the major points easily grasped? Is the article laid out in a logical format? Data presentation/ tabulation: Any irrelevant tables/ figures should be checked. The reviewer should comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study.

Apart from above criteria , reviewers are also requested to complete rating section of the Manuscript Evaluation Form by selecting appropriate rate in terms of ; Clarity of formal structure, Suitability of title to the contents, Abstract sufficiently informative, Originality/Novelty, Methodology sufficiently described, Methodology appropriate to study, Results / Conclusions supported by data analysis, Clarity in the presentation of findings, Scientific soundness, Bibliography adequate and relevant.

Moreover, reviewers are asked for their detailed comments to the Author. The reviewer's comments should be constructive, professional and be sufficiently specific in order to help the author improve the article when revising it for publication or re-submission to QJOES journal (in the event that it is rejected by QJOES). If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should notify the Editor in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties unless officially notified by the journal that they may do so. Reviewers also give their recommendation on decision to the manuscript’s  publication to the Editor.

Review Quality
QJOES selects its reviewers as experts in the scientific topics addressed in the articles they review. They provide written assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of written research with the aims to improve the reporting of research and identifying the most appropriate and highest quality material for the journal. Individuals who do not have such expertise will not be selected as reviewers.

Ratings of review quality and other performance characteristics is periodically assessed by the Executive Editor to assure optimal journal performance. These ratings also contribute to decisions on reappointment to the QJOES Editorial Board and to ongoing review requests. Individual performance data on Reviewers are available to the Editors but otherwise kept confidential. Reviews are expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive.

Publication Ethics & Acknowledgement of Sources
Plagiarism is scientific misconduct and is an unacceptable violation of publication ethics. It should be dealt with promptly. The journal’s editors and reviewers are the primary means of detecting plagiarism in manuscripts submitted to QJOES. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should notify the Editor in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties unless officially notified by the journal that they may do so.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.