Been on the review board of Journal (s) in any form is truly productive, pleasant and in fact prestigious which helps in add-on to the corporate, academia and scientific world through the ways and guidelines given by experts in the relevant fields. Though, it is time consuming and often goes unobserved, there are rewards that makes the ‘Reviewers’ worthwhile.

 Advantages of Reviewing Research Paper

  • By assessing the quality and validity of another author’s work, within the same area, the peer-review process allows authors and editors an opportunity to use and develop their own expertise in a number of significant ways.
  • Fulfil a sense of scientific obligation to the community and their own area of concentration;
  • Establishes relationships with reputable colleagues and their affiliated journals, and may also increase his / her opportunity to be invited to join an Editorial Board;
  • Reciprocates professional courtesy as typically authors and reviewers are often interchangeable roles. In assisting an author with their paper, reviewers ‘Repay’ the same courtesy they receive when authoring their own papers
  • Establish expertise in and knowledge of the field;
  • Increase reputation and exposure to key figures in the community;
  • Stays update with respect to the discipline’s latest literature.

Duties of Reviewers 

  • Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer-review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer-review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.
  • Promptness: Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
  • Confidentiality: Any papers received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to, or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
  • Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  • Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  • Disclosure & Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not consider any papers in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper.
  • Adherence to our Publishing Ethics: The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour involved in the act of publishing.


Rewarding Reviewers

The academic publishing community relies on an enormous amount of goodwill from reviewers and at QJMR Journal we are keen to ensure that our reviewers feel appreciated and valued. Following will help in encouraging participation reviewers:

  • Acknowledge reviewers periodically in the journal;
  • Provide reviewers with feedback on the outcome of the review decision;
  • Give reviewers feedback on the quality of their review;
  • Reward the best reviewers with appointments to the Editorial Board.
  • Research articles provided by the members will be published.
  • Remuneration for reviewing paper