Instructions for reviewers for GPCL’s journals

Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing, ensuring the credibility, accuracy, and impact of scientific research. Genesis Publishing Consortium Limited (GPCL) extends an invitation to experts in the fields of engineering, medicine, business studies, biological sciences, medical science, and other disciplines to contribute to the peer review process for GPCL’s journals. These detailed instructions aim to provide comprehensive guidance to reviewers, outlining essential criteria, ethical considerations, and specific parameters that define the rigorous peer review standards upheld by GPCL.

Scope of GPCL’s journals

The research study under review must align with the thematic scope of GPCL’s journals, encompassing diverse fields within engineering, medicine, business studies, biological sciences, medical science, and other disciplines.

Review criteria

Comprehensive review criteria

The following elucidation aims to provide reviewers with a nuanced understanding of the multifaceted aspects they are expected to evaluate in a manuscript.

1) Performed under ethical compliance?

Reviewers are tasked with assessing whether the study described adheres to ethical standards. This involves scrutinizing the methods employed to ensure they are ethical and compliant with established guidelines. As part of this criterion, reviewers may evaluate aspects such as participant consent, animal welfare, and any potential conflicts of interest. A robust ethical foundation is essential to the integrity of the research and the trustworthiness of its findings.

2) Scientifically correct?

This criterion delves into the scientific accuracy of the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to evaluate the validity of the research design, methods, and execution. This involves scrutinizing the data collection process, experimental setup, and analytical methods employed. The goal is to ensure that the study’s scientific underpinnings are sound, contributing to the advancement of knowledge in the field.

3) Is originality significant?

The originality of the research is a key consideration in scholarly publishing. Reviewers are tasked with evaluating the manuscript’s contribution to existing knowledge. This involves assessing whether the study brings forth novel insights, approaches, or perspectives. The criterion seeks to ensure that the research makes a meaningful and original contribution to the academic discourse.

4) Study plan and methods acceptable?

Reviewers are called upon to scrutinize the study plan and methods employed in the research. This includes an assessment of the experimental design, data collection procedures, and analytical methods. The aim is to ascertain the appropriateness of the chosen methodologies in addressing the research questions or objectives. Reviewers play a crucial role in ensuring methodological rigor and validity.

5) Statistically correct?

Statistical correctness is a critical aspect of scientific research. Reviewers are tasked with evaluating the appropriateness of statistical methods used in data analysis. This involves assessing whether the statistical procedures are suitable for the study design and whether they are correctly applied. Ensuring statistical robustness is imperative for drawing reliable conclusions from the data.

6) Citations appropriate?

This criterion focuses on the scholarly context of the manuscript. Reviewers assess whether the citations included are relevant, up-to-date, and appropriately used to support the study’s background, rationale, and findings. The goal is to ensure that the manuscript is well-grounded in the existing literature and that proper credit is given to prior work.

7) Conclusion acceptable based on the scientific results obtained?

Reviewers evaluate the soundness of the conclusions drawn in the manuscript based on the scientific results obtained. This involves scrutinizing whether the conclusions align with the study’s objectives and whether they are supported by the data presented. Reviewers play a pivotal role in ensuring that the interpretations and implications drawn are scientifically valid.

8) Length of the paper appropriate?

The length of a manuscript is a practical consideration in scholarly publishing. Reviewers are tasked with evaluating whether the length of the paper is appropriate for the depth and scope of the research. This involves assessing whether the manuscript is concise yet comprehensive, presenting the necessary information without unnecessary verbosity.

9) Title and abstract appropriate?

The title and abstract are crucial elements that convey the essence of the research. Reviewers assess whether the title accurately reflects the study’s focus and whether the abstract provides a clear and concise summary of the research. Ensuring that these elements are appropriately crafted enhances the manuscript’s visibility and accessibility.

10) Figures and tables appropriate?

Figures and tables are integral components of scientific communication. Reviewers evaluate whether the figures and tables included in the manuscript are relevant, clear, and effectively enhance the understanding of the research. This involves assessing the appropriateness of data presentation and the clarity of visual elements.

11) English usage correct?

Effective communication is paramount in scholarly writing. Reviewers assess the correctness of English language usage in the manuscript. This includes evaluating grammar, syntax, and overall language clarity. Ensuring proper language usage contributes to the accessibility and readability of the research.

12) Others

The “Others” category provides flexibility for reviewers to address any additional considerations not explicitly covered in the predefined criteria. This open-ended section allows reviewers to highlight any aspects they find noteworthy or that may significantly impact the manuscript’s quality.

General considerations

Ethical considerations
  • Reviewers are expected to disclose any potential conflicts of interest during the review process.
  • Transparency and honesty contribute to the integrity of the peer review process.
Constructive criticism
  • Comments directed to authors should be constructive, aiming to enhance the overall quality of the paper.
  • A positive, impartial, and critical approach is encouraged. Criticism should be presented in a dispassionate manner, avoiding offensive remarks.
Specificity in comments
  • Reviewer comments should be specific, avoiding vague or subjective statements.
  • Personal opinions have no place in the review; the focus should be on the scientific merit of the manuscript.
  • Comments are numbered to facilitate a clear and organized revision process for both editors and authors.
  • Maintaining the confidentiality of the review process is imperative.
  • Avoid making statements about the paper’s acceptability in comments to authors, as the final decision rests solely with the editors. Confidential comments to the editor may be used to express specific recommendations.

Review timeline and communication

Review timeline
  • Reviewers are expected to complete the review within 3 weeks, adhering to the stipulated deadline.
  • Timely communication with the editorial office is essential in case of any challenges in meeting the deadline.
Communication protocol
  • Reviewers are encouraged to maintain open and effective communication with the editorial office.
  • For conflict resolution, concerns, or inquiries, the editorial office can be contacted promptly at the provided email addresses.
Instructions for reviewers

Do you have any question? Ask us

    Two columns
    Preferred Editing Service Price Calculator
    Estimated Fee
    Name Total
    "{{getWooProductName}}" has been added to your cart
    Have a promocode?
    Promocode Hide Show