| Reviewers’ Profile and Responsibilities | The Wocsi Journal of Medical Science Peer Reviewer | Revision |

 

The Wocsi Journal of Medical Science is a double-blind review process, which means that reviewers know the names of authors, but the names of the reviewers are hidden from the authors. We genuinely appreciate the reviewers who volunteer their time to peer-review manuscripts for our Journal.  High quality academic publishing is built on rigorous peer review. Peer review is a crucial step in the publication process since it helps The Wocsi Journal of Medical Science maintain the highest standards for the articles it publishes. All submissions to our journals are subjected to rigorous peer assessment by professionals.

 

Reviewers’ Profile and Responsibilities

The reviewer's task is crucial and comes with a lot of responsibility for maintaining the accuracy of the academic record. Every reviewer must evaluate each manuscript in accordance with the  COPE guidelines https://publicationethics.org/files/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers-v2_0.pdf. Reviewers should meet the following criteria:

• Hold no financial ties to any of the authors
• A protected document is the unpublished manuscript. Please keep it safe from misuse in any way. Before an article is published, reviewers are not permitted to mention it, refer to the work it details, or use the data it contains to enhance their own investigations.
• Reviewer should not be affiliated with the authors' institution.
• Reviewer should not have co-authore a previous publication within the last three years with the Author. 
• A reviewer must make a conscious effort to approach the material they are evaluating with positivity and objectivity. The goal of your position should be to support the author and act as their partner in order to advance clear and correct scientific communication. 
• Reviewer  possess a PhD (Nursing),  MD (Anaesthesia & Palliative care,  MS, M.Sc Nursing, M.P.H. Dermatologist, Gastro Surgeon, Plastic Surgeon, Diabetologist etc. (Suitable for scope of our journal).
• Reviewer possesses appropriate expertise and a track record of publications in the topic represented by the submitted article (Scopus, ORCID).
• Make sure to send the submission back to the editor right away with a justification if you aren't convinced evaluate a particular Manuscript objectively.
• Reviewer are seasoned academics in the subject matter of the research submitted.
• Reviews should be finished quickly, in 5 to 10 days. Please let the editor know if you believe you won't be able to complete the review in the allotted time.
• Reviewer own  a  recognized  and  formal  academic  affiliation .
• A reviewer shouldn't speak with a paper's author(s) about it. Talk to us beforehand if you want to consult a junior or a colleague.
• Please inform the editor on the given sheet rather than specifically stating whether or not a paper is acceptable in your comments for forwarding to the author.

The Wocsi Journal of Medical Science Peer Reviewer

{ 1 } Read the Journal 

Visit the journal's homepage and read the objectives, scope, and guidelines for authors and editorial guidelines to get an idea of ​​the journal's scope and content. This will help you determine if the article you are reviewing is a good fit for the journal.

 

{ 2 } The First Read task

Reviewer received the manuscript abstract, Reviewer already understand the journal aim key, data and conclusions of the manuscript. It will help you form an initial first impression of the manuscript and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the manuscript. First Read Considerations are following :

• What is the problem statement of research? Is it irrelevant, relevant and innovative ?
• The  problem statement of research is subject area compared with other pre published material?
• Manuscript is well written,  clear, concise  and easy to readable ?
• Are the results and conclusions of manuscript is consistent with the evidence ?  Do they address the problem statements ?
• If the manuscript contains abstract, introduction, methodology, statistics, table, graph results, conclusions and references is relevant matching to each other ?

{ 3 } Write a Peer Review Report

Your report has two purposes: to provide editors with information to help them make decisions, and to provide feedback to authors to help them improve their work. 

 

• After first reading and with the help of reviewer comments, including major flaws you find, write the first two paragraphs of your review - the first paragraph summarizes the The research question is addressed and the second paragraph is the contribution of the work. This should state the main question addressed by the research and summarize the objectives, approach, and conclusions of the paper. 
• It should Help editors properly contextualize your research and add weight to your statement.
• Show the author what key messages are conveying to the reader, so they can be sure they are getting what they set out to be  Focus on the successful aspects of the article so that the author gets a feel for what they did well.

Now that you've finished your prep work, you're ready to spend about an hour reading the manuscript thoroughly. You can also consider: 

 

• Does the title reflect the topic of the article? 
• Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper? 
• Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
• Is the paper the right length? 
• Are key messages short, precise and clear?

 

{4 } Give detailed assessment report

(A)Positive assessment report

 

• Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper.
• Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper.
• Do the keywords accurately reflect the content.
• Is the paper an appropriate length.
• Are the key message short, accurate and clear.
• Scientific reliable.
• Ethical aspects is full filled.
• Overall presentation is satisfied. (including writing style, clarity of writing & Language)
• Given the complexity involved, the author has achieved a number of positive and welcome results. The assessment of the literature provides a comprehensive summary of current research and policy, and the accompanying citation is a valuable resource for current practitioners.
• This is a well-written article that highlights a significant gap.
• While this study is mostly confirmatory, it is nonetheless a valuable and welcome addition.
• I reviewed the methodology and extra data and found the study to be well-executed and sufficiently controlled, with no evident flaws.

 

(B) Constructive criticism report

 

• The abstract is rather long and goes into comprehensive accounts that are better suited for the main discussion portions of the paper. I suggest  the author concise the abstract.
• I strongly recommend that the author update their introduction, analysis, and discussion. I suggest the author that requirement of more contextualized introduction.
• problem statement is showing human are used. I suggest the author; provide ethical approval because our data base is under ethical consideration.
• Your reference is not appropriate; require more evidence based citation for matching your outcomes.
• The data table is not matching to manuscript and results. Provide detailed information.
• This discussion might be developed to clarify.
• The author could improve the paper by.
• Regrettably, I have discovered a potential significant mistake in the paper, which I believe will be difficult to overcome unless the authors perform the following extra analyses.
• To publish this manuscript, the author must respond to the following significant points.

( C )  Proofreading alterations

Not all manuscript submissions are well-written. This manuscript might use some additional proofreading. It may be beneficial to hire a professional English language editor for reconstruct manuscript. Part of your role is to make sure the meaning of the text is clear. If the article is difficult to understand, you should reject it. However, if the language isn't great but you understand the main message, see if you can suggest improvements to fix the problem: •

 

• Is there an aspect that could have been communicated better, such as parts of a discussion.
• Should authors consider submitting again to the same journal after improving the language.
• Would you consider reviewing the documentation after these issues have been resolved.
• A couple sentences should be rephrased for clarity.

 

{ 5 } Make a recommendation

Once you have read the manuscript and have assessed its quality, you may need to make an overall recommendation to the editor to help them make a decision. The specific options used by a journal will vary, but the three key recommendations are :

(1) Acceptance without changes (uncommon):  

We  accept the paper with no changes. The manuscript is fullfilled the criteria of new innovation & novelty appropriateness. This manuscript requires no additional reviews. This manuscript will, essentially, be published "as is," with no additional action by the reviewers. The manuscript  is suitable for publication in its current form.

 

(2) Acceptance with comments  (Major or Minor ) :

 

1. Major : We accept the manuscript but major flaws. The manuscript is fulfilled  the criteria of new innovation & novelty appropriateness. This manuscript requires additional reviews. The manuscript require substantial changes such as expanded data analysis, widening of the literature review, or rewriting sections of the text.
2. Minor  : We accept the manuscript but minor  flaws. The manuscript is full filled the criteria of new innovation & novelty appropriateness. The manuscript require changes such as grammatical correction. We  will check for the changes him/herself when the authors submit their revised version.

 

(3) Reject :

Manuscripts that fall into this category will fail to meet the criteria of novelty and appropriateness, may be poorly written or targeted for a different audience, or require such significant editing that the edit cannot reasonably occur in the timeframe the author is allotted for revision. The reasoning for a Reject decision should be made clear in the journal comments.

 

{ 6 } Revision

Authors are requested to provide a list of modifications and any feedback for the reviewers when they make changes to their paper. If only minor changes were required, the editor might evaluate the amended version before returning it, if possible, to the original reviewers. The next step is to ask you to confirm that the changes are satisfactory.