Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewer

As a guardian of the research records, a peer reviewer plays an important role in maintaining the integrity of the record. Peer review in its all form is important for the scientific community and the reviewer must adhere themselves to the highest standard of publication ethics. Reviewers are in a unique position to encourage the conduct of good research through their policies and processes. Peer reviewers play an important role in the review process and the process depends largely on trust and requires everyone involved in the process to behave responsibly and ethically. This document aims to set standard guidelines to which a reviewer should adhere during the process of reviewing. It is hoped that these guidelines will help foster responsible conduct of research.

Basic principles to which reviewer should adhere:

• 
  
  • Always agree to review those articles that fall under your area of expertise and of which you can carry out a review in a timely manner.
  • A reviewer should always respect the confidentiality of the peer review and should in any circumstances disclose the content of the manuscript and the review process, except that is disclosed by the journal.
  • A reviewer should not use the information from the review process or the manuscript for his or for any organization's advantage or disadvantage and should not discredit others under any circumstances.
  • The reviewer should seek the advice of the journal whenever it is necessary and should always declare all conflicts of interest that arise during the process.
  • A reviewer should never work under the influence of the color, gender, nationality, or religious or political beliefs of an author.
  • A reviewer should be constructive in remarks and should not be hostile and should refrain from making derogatory remarks.
  • A reviewer should provide a journal with all the necessary and correct information about himself and impersonating someone is considered serious misconduct.

Expectations during review process

• • It is the responsibility of the reviewer to reply promptly especially in case if they cannot review the manuscript in the stipulated time.
  • A reviewer should always notify the journal in case he doesn't have the subject expertise required to review the manuscript, they should also provide the journal with the area of expertise.
  • On agreeing to review a manuscript, they should do that promptly and should inform the journal as soon as possible of any delay.
  • A Reviewer should always highlight any potential conflict of interest that may arise and should seek the advice of the journal if they feel that they are unsure of the situation.
  • A reviewer should review a manuscript afresh if the manuscript has been submitted again or if it has been already reviewed by some other journal.
  • A reviewer should decline to review a manuscript if he is unable to provide an unbiased review and should not accept the manuscript just for the sake of getting a sight of it.

During Review Process

• A reviewer should notify the journal as soon as he discovers a conflict of interest or anything that might prevent them from giving an unbiased result.
• Do not associate others with the review of the manuscript without obtaining permission, however, if they do associate someone in reviewing process, they should give their names and review and try to give credits for their efforts.
• A reviewer should ensure that the review is not based on the personality of the author or is not influenced and is purely based on the originality and quality of the content of the manuscript.
• A reviewer should not contact the author without the permission of the journal.
  

While Preparing Report

Editorial Policy 

The manuscript is a privileged document. It needs to be protected from any form of exploitation. Editors/ reviewers are expected not to cite, refer to, and refrain from using the information it embodies for the advancement of their research.

• An editor/ reviewer should consciously adopt a positive, impartial attitude towards the manuscript under review.
• An editor/ reviewer should aim at promoting precise and effective scientific communication.
• An editor/ reviewer who thinks that he/she is not in a position to judge a particular manuscript impartially, should not select or accept it for review/ refereeing.
• Review/ refereeing should be carried out as per the stipulated timelines. In case it appears the deadlines are hard to meet in some specific cases, the CKME Journals publication management team should be informed accordingly. This will enable the latter to take alternative measures to avoid expected delays.
• An editor/ reviewer should not discuss a manuscript with its author/s. CKME Journal (s) Online Journal system updates the Author about every action being taken on their manuscript.
• The identity of editors/ reviewers is kept confidential as per the policies of the STM Journals.
• It is appropriate, not to make any statement about acceptance/ rejection or revision (subject to receipt of two similar opinions on revision) on a manuscript to the author, till a final verdict is arrived at, as per the CKME Journals norms.
• The announcement of the decision on acceptance/ rejection may rest on the CKME Journals publication management team.
• The publication management team expects the editor/ reviewer to monitor the status of manuscripts and especially watch for the comments on revision, rejection, and acceptance to avoid any duplication of efforts at their ends. Onward actions/ decisions by the publication management team will be based on the information/ comments made available by the editor/ reviewer online on the web/ offline through an email.
• The critical appraisal should be presented dispassionately in the comments intended for the Authors and harsh remarks avoided.
• Suggested modifications should not imply conditions of acceptance. It is important to make a distinction between revisions considered essential and those judged merely desirable.
• In cases, we do not accept a manuscript; we should convey our constructive comments that might help the author to improve it. This requires providing elaborate comments (with citations, if possible); it will help the editors/ reviewers to make a decision on the manuscript and the authors to improve it.
• The documentation on criticism, arguments, and suggestions concerning the manuscript is to be preserved carefully. It will be quite useful for decision-makers.
• Editors/ reviewers are not expecting correct mistake/s in grammar, but any assistance in this regard will be highly appreciated.
• The editors/ publication management team gratefully receives a reviewer's/ referee’s recommendation (s), but since the decisions are based on evaluations derived from several sources, a reviewer/ referee should not expect decision-makers to honor his or her every recommendation.
• (In preparation of these norms, support from the information provided in the guidelines of Council of Management Editors has been taken)

Yardsticks 

General Yardsticks on the suitability of Manuscripts

• Originality- Novel that has the potential to significantly add/support the research already published/known to us through available literature.
• Subject relevance and scientific reliability.
• Importance in terms of application or otherwise to scientific/ business community in particular and the society in general of the subject dealt.
• Adequacy of abstract, keywords.
• Appropriateness of approach or experimental design, adequacy of experimental techniques (including statistics where appropriate, need for statistical assessment). Methods adequately described/ appropriate or not.
• Results relevant to the problem posed/ credible or not.
• Answers to questions- Soundness of conclusions and interpretation, interpretation and conclusions warranted by the data, reasonable speculation, and clarity of the message.
• Relevance of citations and their up-to-date inclusion. Obvious omission(s), if any.
• Relevance of the figures and table, clarity of legends, and titles.
• Suitability for the CKME Journal(s) in totality. Its appropriateness for general readers or a specialist clientele.
• Presentation in toto, considering writing style, clarity in expression. 

(In preparation of these norms, support from the information provided in the guidelines of Council of Management Editors has been taken)