Peer review:

• Helps to understand whether the manuscript is real or unreal,
• Shows the novelty, originality, correctness, and importance of the work,
• Provides constructive feedback, so the authors can upgrade their knowledge and improve their manuscript,
• Ensure that high quality and original research are available for other researchers,
• Is necessary for scholarly communications.

The Reviewer:

• Senior-level researchers, early-career researchers, post-doctorals, and graduate students are the main reviewers,
• Anyone who conducts relevant research and publishes in the technical literature is the reliable reviewer.
• When the reviewer receives the review invitation email, the IJOP Editor strongly appreciates a prompt reply to it.
• The reviewer should decline the manuscript review, if there is any type of financial or non-financial conflict of interest such as:

• Personal relationships or rivalries,
• Academic competition,
• Intellectual beliefs (such as an inherent bias against the author’s approach),
• Conflicting or competing research.

• The reviewer should decline to review, if believes that is not completely expertise in the field of the manuscript. Even though the reviewer is likely selected because he (she) works in a similar field, the reviewer should ask himself (herself):

• Am I familiar enough with the authors’ research technique and methodology to judge it accurately? If so, I might be a good match.
• Are there any significant aspects of the manuscript that I do not understand or do not have direct experience with? Is the topic new to me? If so, I am not probably the best reviewer for this manuscript.

• The reviewer can get help from his (her) colleague or post-doctoral candidate, with emphasis on the manuscript confidentiality.

The Review Process

• If the reviewer agrees to perform the review of a manuscript, he (she) is encouraged to carefully review the paper.
• Then he (she) should fill out the Review Form and submit it.
• Due to the expertise of the reviewer, it is expected that he (she) should reveal any type of plagiarism, even self-plagiarism.
• The Journal Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board expect to get complete explanations for any type of decision on different aspects of the manuscript.

The reviewer should:

• Assess appropriateness of the manuscript contents for the Journal
• Check the Novelty, Significance, and Impact of the aspects
• Assess the theoretical and study approach of the aspects,
• Check the correctness of the aspects approach description, procedure, actions, mechanisms, and methods (quality of technical content),
• Check the methods to be clear and logical.
• Check the design guidelines, limitations on implementation of theory, fundamental assumptions of the experimental or computational methodology of the work,
• Check the perfection and reality of the references,
• Check that the authors give all the information in an accessible and easy-to-understand format (quality of presentation),
• Give enough explanations and comments for any of these items,

• Write comments to the authors and if necessary confidential comments to the editor.

info[]opsi.ir

info[]ijop.ir