|
Guide for Reviewers
After receiving your ‘invitation to review’ email, you should:
1. Determine whether you can complete the review by the due date (usually 2 to 3 weeks).
2. Quickly skim the relevant portions of the article and verify that it fits within the scope of the journal and your area of expertise.
3. Accept or decline to do the review, using the relevant link above.
After accepting to review
Read the article in depth and use our online evaluation form to submit your thoughts and comments.
If you feel on reflection that the article does not fit within the scope of the journal, please contact the editor for instructions – use the ‘Send a comment to Editor’ feature which is located at the bottom of the evaluation form (click ‘Complete the evaluation form’ to get to the form).
If you have a time problem or a conflict of interest, please contact the editor for instructions. They may extend the deadline or reassign the review.
Please do not discuss the article with its authors either during or after the review process. Although it may seem reasonable to discuss points of difficulty or disagreement directly with an author, especially if you are generally in favour of publication and do not mind revealing your identity, this practice is prohibited. The other reviewers and the editor may have different opinions, and the author may be misled by having such a dialogue with you.
This article is a privileged communication. Please do not show it to anyone or discuss it, except to solicit assistance with a technical point. If you feel a colleague is more qualified than you to review the article, do not pass the article on to that person –contact the editor and explain the situation.
Your review and your recommendation should also be considered confidential.
In your comments intended for the author, do not make statements about the acceptability of an article; suggested revisions should be stated as such and not expressed as conditions of acceptance.
The final decision regarding modification, acceptance, or rejection of an article rests solely with the editor, so do not state your recommendation in the portion of the review that will be sent to the author.
The evaluation form contains comments boxes; please use these to give your overall impression of the article, and to highlight any major shortcomings. Criticism should be presented dispassionately; offensive remarks are not acceptable.
There is a comments box you can use to send confidential remarks to the editor.
You may be asked to review a revised version of the article, after the author has made any requested amendments. You will need to evaluate the author's responses to your initial comments.
Your evaluation will play a major role in the editor’s decision as to whether to accept an article for publication. It is important to be prompt, fair, and to review the article carefully and in depth.
Inderscience are very grateful for the time and effort you invest in this review process.
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools and services
Papers written using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools and services are acceptable to improve writing and readability, but we do not accept papers that have been generated mostly or entirely by an AI tool.
It continues to be the author’s responsibility to check and ensure the accuracy and legitimacy of the content.
Authors are required to insert a declaration in their paper that AI tools were used in the writing or creation of their paper, with a brief explanation of the name of the tool/s and what they were used for.
If no declaration is included in the paper and you feel that AI tools were used to write/create the paper, you can ask the author to insert a declaration as part of their revisions.
Please look out for fake papers which are largely AI-generated.
These papers usually do not form a coherent whole.
Other warning signs of such papers are that:
• they are usually written in good English, but the style will vary abruptly from formal academic or technical language to very casual sentences with rather meaningless phrases and buzzwords
• the abstract and full paper do not match in content
• there is little analytical content
• the title or the references do not match the topic of the paper
• figures, images and tables are likely to be copied in from other sources, are inconsistent with the content of the paper and usually not labelled correctly.
When you come across such papers, you must advise the Editor along with your reasoning, using the section “Comments for the Editor only’ section in your review form.
|
