The information outlined below describes how to review the manuscript submitted by authors to the SRELS Journal of Information Management (SRELS). We request you to read this in full before reviewing an article.
Peer review is the system for evaluating the quality, validity, and relevance of scholarly research. The process aims to provide authors with constructive feedback from relevant experts which they can use to make improvements to their work, thus ensuring it is of the highest standard possible. Authors expect reviews to contain an honest and constructive appraisal, which is completed in a timely manner and provides feedback that is both clear and concise. The peer-review process does receive much criticism and is not without its limitations; however, it remains a widely accepted practice in terms of journal quality.
Purpose of Review:
To help authors improve their manuscripts, applying your professional expertise to help others.
To assist in maintaining a good, meticulous peer-review process resulting in the publication of good quality papers.
To make the author aware of any additional literature that may provide useful comparison, or clarification of an approach.
Refer to the Instructions for Authors to see if the manuscript meets the submission criteria of the journal (Journal Guidelines).
Complete the review and indicate the relative strengths or weaknesses of the manuscript by uploading your comments on ‘Journal Platform’.
Once you’ve read the manuscript and have assessed its quality, you need to make a recommendation to the editor regarding publication as follows:
- Accept - if the manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
- Revisions - if the manuscript will be ready for publication after light revisions. Please list the revisions you would recommend.
- Reject - if the manuscript is not suitable for publication in this journal or if the revisions that need to be undertaken are too many for the submission to continue being considered in its current form.
Detailed comments to be provided which will be suitable for transmission to the authors.
Mention the comments to the author, as an opportunity to seek clarification on any unclear points and for further elaboration.
Confirm whether you feel the subject of the manuscript is sufficiently interesting to justify its length; if you recommend shortening, it is useful to the author(s) if you can indicate specific areas where you think that shortening is required.
It will be helpful if you correct the English where the technical meaning is unclear.
Once the comments are pasted or uploaded you can submit it to the editor; Editor will send those comments to the author(s) for revisions.
If you are unable to complete your report on a manuscript in the agreed time frame please inform the editor, so that the refereeing process is not delayed.
Make the editors aware of any potential conflicts of interest that may affect the manuscript under review.
Get in touch with us: firstname.lastname@example.org