Peer review is the backbone of any scholarly publishing. The objectives of these guidelines are to help the peer-reviewer and to provide an ethical overview.  These guidelines may help the reviewers to find the answers to most of the queries and provide thorough guidance for completing a peer review and reporting thoroughly and promptly. If you have any further queries, write to us at editor.japsr@gmail.com

 Motto of Review:

• To assist authors in improving their manuscripts and utilizing the reviewer's professional expertise to help others.
• To assist in maintaining a good, meticulous peer-review process resulting in the publication of quality articles.
• To make the authors aware of any additional literature that may provide useful comparison or clarification of an approach.

Guidelines

• All manuscripts submitted to JAPSR are subjected to blind peer review. Reviewers should consider the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers before accepting to review a manuscript and throughout the peer-review process.
• Journal expects its reviewers to undertake an objective review of an article and while agreeing to a blind review, we trust that the reviewers will not go out of their way to determine the author's identity. All the reviewers need to accept the terms and conditions of peer-review, before starting a review. 
• Once the reviewer receives a request for peer review the peer reviewers must respond promptly, particularly if they cannot do the review, to avoid unnecessarily delaying the review process and finally the publication of articles.
• Peer reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of any information regarding the author's identity and the manuscript content.
• Peer review comments should be objective and constructive without being of a hostile or derogatory nature.
• Refer to the Author's Guidelines to see if the manuscript meets the submission criteria of the journal.
• The reviewer must complete the review and indicate the relative strengths or weaknesses of the manuscript by uploading your comments on the online peer-review platform (OJS) or send the revisions in MS Word file directly to the editor mentioning the Manuscript ID and title of the manuscript.
• Once the Reviewer read the manuscript and has assessed its quality, he/she needs to make a recommendation to the editor regarding the publication as follows:
  
  • Accept - if the manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
  • Revisions - if the manuscript will be ready for publication after minor revisions. Please list the revisions you would recommend to ease authors.
  • Reject - if the manuscript is not suitable for publication in this journal or if the revisions that need to be undertaken are too many for the submission to continue being considered in its current form.

• Detailed comments are to be provided which will be suitable for transmission to the authors.
• Mention the comments to the author, as an opportunity to seek clarification on any unclear points and for further elaboration.
• Confirm whether you feel the subject of the manuscript is sufficiently interesting to justify its length; if you recommend shortening, it is useful to the author(s) if you can indicate specific areas where you think that shortening is required.
• It will be helpful if you correct the English where the technical meaning is unclear.
• Once the comments are pasted or uploaded you can submit them to the editor; the Editor will send those comments to the author(s) for revisions.
• If you are unable to complete your report on a manuscript in the agreed time frame please inform the editor, so that the refereeing process is not delayed.
• Make the editors aware of any potential conflicts of interest that may affect the manuscript under review.