PEER REVIEW POLICY

Firstly, an editor (editor-in-chief in most cases) will assess any submission for suitability. An editor that co-authored a manuscript, or express competing interests in a manuscript, will not handle the review process of the submission. A potentially suitable manuscript will be sent to independent experts identified by the Handling editor to check the scientific and language quality and the arrangement of the paper. The editor makes the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles, based on the recommendations by reviewers, and the corresponding author will be promptly informed.

Double-blind review

Some journals operate a double-blind review process. During the review, both authors and reviewers will not know their identities to ensure an unbiased evaluation. Due to this review method, authors are to submit TWO copies of the manuscript to the journals. In one of the manuscript documents, remove names and affiliations of the authors, as well as the document properties and personal information, and upload as “Manuscript without Author Details”.

Open peer review

In the open peer review process, the authors are privileged to know the name of the reviewers from the peer review reports. Besides, we will publish the article with the reviewers’ reports that has the names of the reviewers, if the manuscript is accepted. By implication, the reviewers and the authors’ know their identities; however, there should not be a direct correspondence between them, and in case of necessity, it must be through the handling editor or editor-in-chief.

Transparent peer review

The transparent peer review process follows the process described under the open peer review process, and the difference is that the names of the reviewers are not included in the reviewers’ reports.

Suggestion of reviewers

Authors may need to suggest at least two reviewers at submission by providing personal and contact information, like names, addresses and e-mail addresses of the reviewers. The suggested reviewers must be from the same field of study, not from the same institution or department and not present or previous research guide of any of the authors, not collaborated with any of the authors in the recent time. The editorial team will decide the suitability of the suggested reviewers.

Selection of reviewer

Selecting suitably qualified reviewers is critical to Glintplus and her journals. Among many factors considered for selecting peer reviewers, expertise evident from published articles in the same field in reputed journals, affiliation, and reputation most important. Review invitation is sent to proposed reviewers, requesting for their approval within a stipulated time.

Review process flow

Generally, Glintplus is committed to a fast, effective and efficient editorial process and publication. Reviewers can request for extra time but should be promptly communicated to the handling editor so that we can notify the authors accordingly and seek alternatives, where required.

The handling editor receives the reports from the reviewers, reviews them and decide to continue to next stage or reject the manuscript. In case of continuation, the reviewers’ reports are sent to authors for adjustments. The second round of review process may be initiated in case of major revision, especially if design and results are greatly affected. Authors should submit the revised manuscript within two weeks in case of minor corrections and a maximum of four weeks where major revision and additional experiment or analysis are required. Authors are requested to fill ‘review comment form’, and submit along with the revised manuscript, as it helps the editorial board to make the final decision.

Guidelines for Peer-Review Process

1. Glintplus journals prohibit plagiarism or any other forms of illegal duplication other studies. If you suspect any misconducts, maybe the editor did not detect them at the preliminary assessment of the manuscript, kindly report it and provide evidence.
2. Some of our journals publish previously validated methodology, with or without modification, that provides a new set of data. Also, studies that reconfirm already published method or design or results but with a new data-set and significant improvements on the introduction and discussion sections may be considered. However, a ‘clear declaration’ of the purpose of the study should be included in the article.
3. Glintplus believes that journals should not reject a manuscript because it is a repetition of a method on a different set of samples with a different data-set, which some publishers referred to as ‘Lack of Novelty’. They should base their judgement on innovation, sound scientific practices, robustness and technicality of the manuscript.
4. The introduction should be brief, and the reference should be recent. The objective of the study must be clearly stated and should present a relationship the present research has with previous ones and/or what is yet to be covered.
5. Critically check if the materials and methods suitable in relations to the standard procedures by regulating agencies and learned societies, as well as methods already validated. Also, check if the procedures are described holistically without ambiguity so that other researchers can repeat the methods. Procurement of materials and chemicals (including standards), where applicable, should be mentioned, stating the suppliers and their addresses, reference details of the materials, among others. Working conditions of the instrument, where used, should be detailed, also. All the necessary statistical tools should be mentioned in this section.
6. Kindly ensure that they properly present the results and discussion section, having the following in focus:

• • data are well controlled and interpreted. Tables and figures are adequately used, ensuring that data presented in a table are not duplicated in a figure;
  • data from tables and figures are exhaustively discussed, and relevant and current references are cited;
  • discussion and conclusions are based on facts, figures and statistics, avoiding biased claims.

7. The conclusion should be based on the findings, and it must present critical opinion with a possible opening for a further study. They should not introduce new data in this section, and authors should not oversell data in their claims, as well.
8. Please ensure that they list every in-text citations in the reference section and vice versa. Also, check if the references follow the American Psychological Association (APA) reference style.
9. Glintplus believes in constructive criticism; hence, reviewers are encouraged to be honest and avoid potentially offensive statements. Sufficiently-informative comments that will enable authors improving the quality of their manuscript and enhancing the chances of acceptance are encouraged. Negative but non-abusive comments should point out the weakness of the study. This will enlighten the authors the basis of the rejection.
10. Reviewers’ comments are critical factors informing decisions of the editorial Team in academic publications; therefore, authors should ultimately treat all suggestions of reviewers and rebut where necessary. Also, authors should not confuse straightforward and genuine comments with unfair criticism.
11. If authors are not satisfied with the rejection decision of any articles, the corresponding author may file an appeal to the editor-in-chief by e-mail, using “Rejection Appeal” as the subject and quote manuscript reference number. Authors should provide reasons for the request and responses to the reviewers’ and/or editor’s comments before it can be treated. editorial board will reply to the authors, which can be a rejection of appeal or intention to initiate an appeal process, within one week. The board will decide and communicate with the authors within three weeks. Do not re-appeal or re-submit a manuscript with a rejection of an appeal.