| |
Guidelines for Reviewers
If you are interested in becoming a reviewer for SARJ of Environmental Sciences, please contact us via email to the address stating categorically your area of expertise.
The Review Process
Each manuscript is assigned to at least 2 reviewers, usually 3, one of whom is a Board of Editor's member. A classification system is used to match reviewers with manuscripts that are most likely to be of interest to them and in their area of expertise. Authors can specify relevant areas of expertise when they submit a manuscript for future ad hoc reviewing experience.
Reviewers are selected by the Handling Editor and invited through e-mail to comment on the manuscript.
Reviewers who accept the invitation are given access to the blinded manuscript and return their comments.. Reviewers complete a short rating scale, post comments for authors, and may post confidential comments to the Editor. Confidential comments for Editors do not go to authors.
Reviewers who agree to evaluate a manuscript are allowed to return comments. Reviewers may request an extension of the deadline for comments by contacting the Editorial Office.
Reviewers who agree to evaluate a manuscript but do not return comments by the due date may be replaced with alternates. All reviewers replaced by alternates receive an e-mail indicating that they have been replaced on the panel to keep the review process moving along.
The Review
Our primary task is to determine the acceptability of the paper, considering its interest, quality and value to SARJ of Environmental Sciences readers. To the extent possible, we are also interested in providing feedback to authors for the purpose of improving the quality of future research and publications.
As you are reviewing the manuscript, please number each comment so that authors can respond on a point-by-point basis and reviewers can easily determine, during subsequent reviews, whether each comment was adequately addressed.
Begin each comment with the page and line number(s) to which the comment refers. Comments for authors go directly to authors without editing. Please be as clear and concise as possible. Provide justification for recommendations since these comments form the basis for manuscript revision or help authors understand why the manuscript is not acceptable. Do not include comments for authors any statement concerning whether the paper should or should not be accepted. Those are reserved for the editor.
In cases where revisions are recommended, please indicate with an asterisk(*) those you consider critical to make the manuscript suitable for publication.
Reviewers need not take the time to correct grammar, punctuation, or sentence structure. If, however, there are problems with these or with general writing style, please tell the authors and recommend that they obtain editorial assistance during manuscript revision.
Revised manuscripts and author responses to reviewer comments are returned to those on the original panel of reviewers who agreed to review a revised manuscript. At that point, the task is to determine whether reviewer concerns are resolved through author responses and corresponding manuscript revisions. New concerns should not be raised unless they emerge from clarification in the revised manuscript.
A manuscript submitted for publication is a privileged communication from the authors to the Journal.
If you accept an invitation to review a manuscript, then realize on closer inspection of the manuscript that you may have a conflict of interest, please contact the Editorial Office. We avoid inviting reviewers from the same institution or work group, but may be unaware of other potential conflicts that could exist.
|
|
