Peer review is the standard method implemented towards analyzing the quality of a research paper. The quality of peer-review process and critical evaluation undertaken by the board members are the most influential factors towards determining the journals’ reputation and quality standard. Openventio strictly follows a double-blinded peer-review process to uphold the journals’ quality and credibility.

Responsibilities

• A potential reviewer should be academically qualified (with a PhD or an equivalent academic degree).

• Reviewers should provide their accurate personal details and professional information, and a just representation of their expertise; this includes verifiable contact information. Impersonation of another expert during the review process will be considered as a serious transgression of law.

• The reviewer should agree to review a manuscript only if he/she has the necessary subject expertise to undertake the evaluation.

• The comments/feedback should be concise and constructive, helping to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.

• The assigned reviewers can decline to review a manuscript upon assignment, should there be any prior commitments, health concerns, time constraints or any other related issues.

• Invited reviewers should be considerate enough to confirm their decision or availability to review within 24 hours.

• In case the reviewer is currently employed with the same institution as any of the authors, or have been close collaborators with the author, he/she should not agree to review the corresponding manuscript.

• Reviewers should disclose any competing or conflicts of interest (personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious) to avoid complications and potential bias prior to the review process, and refrain from reviewing such manuscripts.

• Following the first round of the reviewers’ evaluation, he/she may choose whether or not to re-review the revised article.

• The journal must be informed if there is to be any unavoidable situation or delay in the review process.

• In case of unavailability to continue with the review of an assigned manuscript after agreement, reviewers are expected to recommend alternate reviewers to undertake the assignment.

• The reviewer may contact the journal for any missing, unclear or incomplete information during the review process.

• Any suspicion in the identity of the author(s) should be immediately informed.

• Authors may not be contacted directly by the reviewers without the permission of the journal, in any case.

• Reviewers should give a fair chance to the authors to respond to the critiques.

• Refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for one’s own or another’s advantage.

• Involvement of a third party in the review process, without obtaining permission from the journal will be considered as a serious misconduct.

• It is necessary to provide both general and specific comments in the review assessment form.

• Reviewers must refrain from making derogatory or personal comments in the review feedback.

• Reviewers are expected to recommend acceptance/revision/rejection as a verdict along with their other comments on the manuscript.

• The reviewer’s recommendations are not considered final and are subject to change if the journal receives an adequate set of comments during the editorial review, or from the EIC.

• Reviewers should abstain from suggesting the authors to cite their work in order to increase the citation counts or to enhance the visibility of their own/colleagues’ work.

• If the reviewer himself/herself is the handling editor and is asked to review the same manuscript (in case the reviewer withdraws from the peer review in the middle of the process or is unable to submit the feedback), then he/she must handle the manuscript with transparency, without being under the guise of an anonymous additional reviewer.

• Submit at least one article (Research/Review) and one editorial per year based on his/ her area of expertise.

• Keep us aware if one is unavailable for an extended period of time for whatever reason or if the emails are going to be unanswered for specific period of time, or if there is a change in the email addresses.

• Should the editors fail to maintain the consistency of communication or any other the above. They will be dismissed from the editorship position immediately. 

• All the reviewers participating in the peer review process during the corresponding academic year will be felicitated with an electronic certificate of appreciation during the month of December, every year.

*Note: Identities of all the reviewers shall remain protected in compliance with our double-blinded peer review policy and shall not be disclosed under any circumstances. Reviewers found to be discourteous or producing late and poor quality reviews will be terminated immediately.