The peer review process is one of the most significant aspects of publishing your research study. If your research is not properly reviewed or vetted, you stand the risk of misleading readers when it is eventually published. Spreading misinformation and disrupting the productive, efficient, and meaningful flow of scholarly communication, regardless of the field or discipline is associated with poor review of manuscripts submitted to academic journals. As a scholar, insist on submitting your manuscript to journal editors that guarantee quality peer review to avoid being a victim.
At Zeetarz publishing Nigeria, we insist on quality double peer review process. For this, we first request reviewers’ updated CVs to ensure that they are knowledgeable in their fields of study. We also encourage our reviewers to carefully draw author’s attentions to details instead of being arrogant to authors especially when they feel that the authors have not expressed themselves well.
Peer Review Style adopted by Zeetarz Publishing Nigeria
Many publishers use manuscript review templates for easy review; they simply ask their reviewers to grade manuscript by ticking / scoring the manuscript. For example, some reviewers may score introduction 30%, methodology 30%, Findings 10%, conclusion 5%, total= 75% A. then they will recommend that the author resubmits with minor corrections is necessary.
Such type of review may lead to publishing misleading information. Remember that the role of the reviewers is to ensure that all misleading information in every manuscript never gets published. With the above form of review, it becomes very difficult for the author’s attention to be drawn to such false or misinformation in his/her manuscript. This is why Zeetarz Publishing insists on her manuscript reviewers using Micro-soft reviewing suit- to immediately highlight the area in the manuscript where there are errors. See figures below.
Author’s role in addressing the feedback
With regard to addressing constructive feedback, the author’s major role should be, to understand whether what the viewer suggests or recommends reflects their understanding of what the author have written. Then, if it appears that the reviewers do understand, then consider whether their suggestions fits with the purpose/goal and flow of your writing. As an author, ensure you value every constructive feedback as something that’s helpful; if the reviewer’s feedback is not helpful to you, simply disregard.
When you are asked to effect some changes, what are your reactions like? Do you hold tight to your opinions that you’re not able to accept the reviewer’s suggestions? The essence of double peer review is for other experts in your field to read your work and critic the research work for the sole aim of ensuring quality of the paper.
Do your best to understand the reviewer’s suggestions in your reviewed manuscript before starting to effect corrections.
For more information, please email email@example.com. Feel free to comment of the post and we’ll do our best to respond to your queries.