The reviewer must have relevant research
the Article: Any major divergence from
the standard manuscript format should be
Technical Presentation: The research article
should be technically presented instead of
being presented as a story.
Novelty: The work should have at least 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.
Repeatable Work: Repeatability of the work
is the basic principle of science. Kindly
check whether the presented work could be
Interpretation of Result: The discussion
should hover around the result and should
not include irrelevant and unachievable
Reviewer must check whether proper statistics
has been applied by the author over the data wherever
Plagiarism of Data: Data showing any type of
suspicion, duplication and manipulation must
be brought to the notice of the author(s).
Reviewer can put the article in any
category after evaluation i.e., an
article submitted as 'Research Article'
can be recommended as 'Review Article' after
our reviewer's recommendations. No author
can recommend or force CIBTech or
its associated Journals to change the category of the
Summary: Pin point the strength and weakness
of the article considering potential
importance of the work
present and future context.
At the end 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’s certificate [for
acceptance/rejection of article] should
be sent via email. For reviewer’s
certificate format please click here
The article must be reviewed within one
month time so that timely processing of the
Journals can be made. In exceptional cases
the deadline can be extended further.