These guidelines aim to assist peer reviewers in evaluating manuscripts submitted to the MUK Press Journals. By adhering to these instructions, reviewers can ensure a comprehensive and efficient review process. Should you have additional questions, please direct them to our Editorial Offices.
Our Approach to Peer Review:
The MUK Press prioritizes the swift and thorough processing of manuscripts, recognizing authors' concerns about publication delays. Consequently, we request reviewers to provide their feedback within a 14-business day timeframe.
All submissions undergo a double-blind peer review process to maintain impartiality. We advocate for anonymity among reviewers, emphasizing that they refrain from direct communication with authors. Adhering to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.pdf is essential throughout this process. An overview of the manuscript's journey, from submission to publication, is available for reference.
Significance of Peer Review:
Peer reviewers play a pivotal role by offering informed feedback that guides editorial decisions. This process ensures manuscripts benefit from unbiased evaluations and expert insights, enhancing the quality of published scientific research and reviews. Additionally, it fortifies readers' trust in the article's scientific validity when they have access to reviewer comments.
Expectations from Peer Reviewers:
Timeliness: Respond promptly upon receiving a review request. If unable to undertake the review, communicate promptly to prevent unnecessary delays.
Expertise and Objectivity: Reviewers should declare any potential conflicts of interest. Possessing adequate expertise in the subject matter ensures a comprehensive assessment.
Confidentiality and Conduct:
Maintain strict confidentiality regarding authors' identities and manuscript details.
Provide feedback that is constructive and objective, avoiding any form of derogatory or hostile comments.
For more insights on ethical considerations and conflict of interest, refer to the COPE guidelines.
