Clear communication between the journal editor's and the reviewers is essential to facilitate consistent, fair and timely review. Journal MATERIALS PROTECTION adheres COPE Ethical Guidelines for
Peer Reviewers, which set out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process in research publication.
The following is a guide that reviewers must adhere to.
The review process is conducted anonymously. Journal MATERIALS PROTECTION of never reveals the identity of reviewers to authors. The privacy and anonymity provisions of this process extend to the reviewer, who should not reveal his or her identity to outsiders or members of the press. The review itself will be shared only with the author.
Journal MATERIALS PROTECTION operates a double-blind review process for all submissions. Reviewers must not be in a conflict of interest when accepting to review a paper. Reviewers must treat the submissions as confidential and should not show them or discuss with the others before publication. Your review must contain the classification of submission into one of the mentioned submission types, by selecting an appropriate option within the Review table.
Reviewers need to register with the Journal MATERIALS PROTECTION prior to initiating a peer-review process. If you have any questions about how to review a submission, send your questions to the Editor. In addition to filling out the classification information in the Review Form, you must provide comments and to
Authors and to Editor. In his comments to the authors, the reviewer should point out places in the text that need to be supplemented and clarified. The reviewer must indicate the quality of the language and the images displayed. Also, the reviewer can point the authors for relevant references that should have been reviewed or cited. If you review a submission that is excessively similar to previously published submissions please note this in your comments to the Editor.
At the end of the review, the reviewer should pay attention to the following decisions:
- Recommending Acceptance – If it is recommended to accept the paper in the form provided, details should be provided explaining why it is recommended. If there are any areas in the paper that could be improved slightly, this should be stated.
- Recommending Revision – Where improvements are needed, a recommendation for major or minor revision is typical. Also, you may choose to state whether you opt in or out of the post-revision review too. If recommending revision, state specific changes you feel need to be made. The author may respond to any objection in the review.
- Recommending Rejection – If recommending rejection or a major revision, state this clearly in your review. Where manuscripts have serious defects, they should be clearly rejected or advised on how to refine them in order for them to be reviewed.
In your recommendations for the author, you should:
- provides constructive information that describes ways in which performance can be improved;
- explain what additional research needs to be done to make the proposed conclusions accurate;
- provides critical information about the work to the author, not the Еditor, because the author must know how to improve the paper or why he or she has been denied paper.
The reviewer should know that he or she is making constructive criticisms even if he / she recommends rejecting the paper submitted. This helps researchers, especially young people, improve their paper and help the editor understand why you believe the paper should not be published. You must submit your reviews within a certain time period for the paper to be published in a timely manner.
Thank you for being a reviewer of the journal MATERIALS PROTECTION and for taking the time to review the papers that have been submitted for publication in our journal.
ZASTITA MATERIJALA / MATERIALS PROTECTION