We are committed to upholding the integrity of the work we publish. We encourage our authors, editors and reviewers to refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website. COPE has published a set of Guidelines for Peer reviewers that we recommend reading prior to carrying out the process, these guidelines can be found, along with other sets of guidelines, on the COPE website. We take issues of plagiarism or other breaches of best practice in publication very seriously. Submitted articles may be checked with duplication-checking software. Where an article is found to have plagiarized other work or included third-party copyright material without permission or with insufficient acknowledgement, or where the authorship of the article is contested, we reserve the right not to publish the paper and to take action accordingly. We recommend that if reviewers suspect any of the following problems with any article that they are reviewing that they contact the journal editor to discuss the situation without delay. Reviewers should keep all information about such matters confidential and not discuss them with colleagues other than the journal editor.<

We recommend that reviewers should think carefully about their own potential conflicts of interest relating to the paper before undertaking the review. They should also notify the editor if they become aware of the identity of the author during blind peer review. Additionally, reviewers should be careful not to make judgments about the paper based on personal, financial, intellectual biases or any other considerations than the quality of the research and written presentation of the paper.

• • If the paper has been either published or submitted to another journal.
• • If the paper is duplicating the work of others.
• • If there might be problems with the ethics of the research conducted.
• • If there might be an undeclared conflict of interest attached to the paper.

Purpose of Peer Review

Peer Review is the most valid form of research evaluation and it is a cornerstone in the process of bringing academic research to publication in the following ways: • Evaluation - Peer review is an effective form of research evaluation to help select the highest quality articles for publication. • Integrity - Peer review ensures the integrity of the publishing process and the scholarly record. Reviewers are independent of journal publications and the research being conducted. • Quality - The filtering process and revision advice improve the quality of the final research article as well as offering the author new insights into their research methods and the results that they have compiled. Peer review gives authors access to the opinions of experts in the field who can provide support and insight.

Type of peer review of Unnati journal

Double blind peer review - names are hidden from both reviewers and the authors. Guidelines to Review Articles • Read the paper very carefully. • Relevance to the publication (most editors will reject at submission those articles that do not match the aims and scope of the journal, but it is worth considering this as you read the paper). • Significance of the research within the field. • Originality of the work conducted. It is also important to consider whether the author has ever published a substantially similar paper elsewhere (if you suspect the work may not be original, please view our ethics page for information about how to deal with a variety of situations). • The methodology employed during the research. • Technical accuracy.

Structure and Communication

• Accuracy of references. • Structure of the paper overall, communication of main points and flow of argument. • Quality of written language and structure of the article. • Effectiveness of the article abstract and introduction (some journals will request that authors write structured abstracts, so it may be useful to consult other published papers or the manuscript submission guidelines to help you judge the effectiveness of this section of the paper). • Whether the argument is clear and logical and the conclusions presented are supported by the results or evidence presented. • Whether the title of the article is suitable or effective. • Whether the abstract is a good summary of the article. • Whether the work meets with the article types accepted by the journal. • The accessibility of the paper to a broad readership. • Whether the paper is internally consistent.

Feedback in your reviewer report - giving advice to authors and suggesting revisions

Be as objective as possible in your comments and criticisms and avoid making negative comments about work referenced in the article. • Be specific and as constructive as possible in your criticism. Be clear about what needs to be added or revised. • If relevant, make suggestions about additional literature that the author might read to enrich or improve their arguments. • You should ensure that you are clear which of your comments you are happy for the author to see and which are meant specifically for the journal editor in order to avoid confusion or bad feeling. • While peer reviewers should feel free to make general comments on written quality and make suggestions about how articles might be improved by broadening reading of other literature, it is not the job of the peer reviewer to rewrite articles or suggest detailed changes to wording.

Making a decision

Most journals will ask you to recommend whether a paper should be accepted, rejected or revised (major or minor revisions). • Some journals will ask you to look over the changes made to a paper after peer review to ensure that improvements have been adequately made.

Most important

keep all activity, content and comments relating to the paper confidential.