Peer-Review Policy

Research Summit follows a double-blind peer-review policy in which both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous to each other throughout the process of review.

Editorial Board of Research Summit maintains a regularly updated database of reviewers. The reviewers are selected based on their experience and expertise. The authors can also suggest reviewers, but it is at the Editors' discretion to accept the suggested reviewers or assign in-house reviewers.

The reviewers are also blinded under the double-blind policy. They are unaware of names of authors or their affiliations.

Peer review process:

After initial screening and plagiarism check, the manuscript is sent to at least two reviewers. The reviewers are given a time of 2 weeks to review and submit their remarks about the manuscript which are shared with the corresponding author, who is asked to make corrections and resubmit within two weeks. The corrected manuscript is sent back to the reviewer, who will re-evaluate the revisions. The accepted manuscript is sent to editors for final review for publication. Editors may make final changes to ensure formatting consistency.

 If final reviewer fails to submit the remarks, a reminder with a time period of 1 week is sent to the peer reviewer. If there is still no response, the manuscript is sent to the 3^rd reviewer. The manuscript is also sent to third reviewer if rejected by one reviewer before making a decision of rejection by authors. The Editors/ Chief Editor will make final decision of publication.

To maintain uniformity, peer review forms have been developed and are available in the following links.

Peer Review Form for Original Article

Peer Review Form for Systematic Review

Peer Review Form for Case Report

 

Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers:

While reviewing the manuscript, a reviewer must consider the following:

·         Shall provide a critical but constructive review to help authors improve their works.

·         Shall provide their comments in ascribed deadlines to facilitate the review process.

·         Shall declare the potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript

·         Shall reporting suspected research misconducts.

·         May suggest an alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reasons.

·         Shall treat the manuscript as a confidential document.

·         Shall not use the work described in the manuscript in any other research.

·         Shall not pass on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer.

·         Shall ensure that the manuscript is of high quality, scientific, ethical, within approved structure and valuable addition in medical and scientific knowledge.

Shall write review only in English only.