Guidelines for the Reviewers of Kavaka
The manuscripts submitted for publication in Kavaka being Transactions of Mycological Society of India are subjected to exhaustive review system that is in tune with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. The journal follows the blind review system for the same. The worthy reviewers are requested to go though the following guidelines before proceeding with their review.
Professional responsibility:
The Editor-in-Chief/Editors will assign appropriate reviewers matching with the area and scope of the submitted manuscript to get the best reviews possible. Potential reviewers should provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a fair representation of their expertise, including verifiable and accurate contact information. The reviewers should agree to review only if they have the necessary expertise to assess the manuscript and can be unbiased in assessment.
Timeliness:
The reviewer should respond to an invitation within a week, even if he/she cannot undertake the review. If a reviewer is unable to review, he/she can make suggestions for alternative reviewers if relevant, based on their expertise and without any influence of personal considerations or any intention of the manuscript receiving a specific outcome.
Conducting a review
After accepting the request, the reviewer should go through the manuscript, supplementary data files and ancillary material thoroughly. The reviewer should contact the Editor-in-Chief/Editor if anything is not clear and requesting any missing or incomplete items needed.
Confidentiality:
The reviewer should respect the confidentiality of the review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for one’s own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. The reviewer should not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript without first obtaining permission from the Editor in Chief/Editor in this regard.
Bias and competing interests:
In case the reviewer finds a competing interest that might prevent him/her from providing a fair and unbiased review, he/she must inform the Editor in Chief/Editor and seek advice. If a reviewer is not having the necessary expertise to assess the relevant aspects of a manuscript, he/she should immediately intimate the Editor-in-Chief/Editor so as to avoid the undue delay in the review process. The reviewer must declare all potential competing or conflicting interests. Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious in nature.
Suspicion of ethics violations:
If the reviewer comes across any irregularities with respect to research and publication ethics, he/she should inform the Editor in Chief/Editor at the earliest so that appropriate action in this regard can be taken in time.
Feedback and Review report format:
The reviewers are requested to be objective and constructive in their review, providing feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should act professionally and refrain from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations. The review report must consider the originality of the work, salient features/significant contribution, quality of the work and mode of presentation. The reviewer should make a clear recommendation in the form of Accepted/ Requires minor revision/ Requires major revision/ Not suitable for the journal/ Rejected. The basis for the recommendation must be based on constructive arguments and facts based on the manuscript quality and the content.
Language and style:
The changes required in language and style if any should be sound and clear.
Suggestions for further work:
In case the manuscript is lacking some analyses, the reviewer should comment and explain what additional analyses would be required to clarify the work submitted.
Accountability:
The review report should be prepared by the reviewer himself/herself. The reviewer should avoid making unfair negative comments, unjustified criticism or inclusion of one’s own or an associate’s work merely to increase citation counts. The suggestions must be based on valid sound academic or technological reasons.