Instructions for Reviewers

Quality of any journal mainly depends upon the quality of evaluation being done by its editorial board members. The Reviewer/Editorial Board Members of our Journal are therefore expected to follow and maintain the basic rules of reviewing, once they receive any article for reviewing. To meet the dead-line of the publication, the reviewers are expected to review the article within one month time. Therefore reviewers are expected to select potential articles which do not demand repeated reviews.

Criteria for Reviewing:

  • Reviewer's Eligibility: The reviewer must have relevant research experience.

  • Format of the Article: Any major divergence from the standard manuscript format should be indicated.

  • Technical Presentation: The research article should be technically presented.

  • Novelty: The work should have some degree of novelty. Mere repetition of past work should not be accepted. You can look for conceptual advancement over previously published work. Any major omission of the previously published findings on the similar problem must be checked.

  • Interpretation of Result: The discussion should hover around the result and should not include irrelevant and unachievable statement.

  • Statistical Presentation: Reviewer must check whether proper statistics has been applied by the author over the data, wherever found necessary.

  • Plagiarism of Data: Data showing any type of suspicion, duplication and manipulation must be brought to the notice of the author(s) and editor in chief.

  • Summary: Pin point the strength and weakness of the article considering potential importance of the work in present and future context.

  • Conclusion: Finally, reviewer(s) can recommend necessary corrections needed to accept the paper, if they are actually required, else recommend it for publication. If found unsuitable the paper should be declared as unacceptable for publication.

  • Reviewer/Editor must send the report [regarding suggestions/acceptance/rejection of the article] via email. Please click here to download its copy www.cibtech.org/REVIEWER-REPORT-COMMON.pdf.

  • Review Time: Reviewer should try to review the article within one month time so that timely processing of the Journal can be made. In exceptional cases the deadline can be extended further.

Note: Complete manuscript must be reviewed in any case, until and unless the paper appears absolutely fake or of poorest standard. Reviewer must also write the instructions on the reviewer’s certificate, available in our website. Reviewers are requested to avoid any personalized remarks which may hurt the sentiments of author(s) or may be viewed as biased. Authors are further recommended to go through our Terms and Conditions before submitting their manuscripts.

"We Ensure Promotion of Scholarly Peer Reviewed Work"