Reviewer’s Guidelines     

Why to use Peer Review?

The main motives behind implementing the peer review method are:

  • To ensure the proper verification of the research before publication
  • To correct inadvertent errors in order to enhance the quality of the research

It would be rude to move ahead without thanking our esteemed reviewers without whose expert and rigorous reviews IJISRT has not been able to maintain such high quality standards.

What to do on being asked to review?

  • Take only those articles which match your expertise

The Editor may not be aware of your work in detail context at the time of approaching you. Accept the articles for review only if you have the expertise in the particular field.

  • Analyse the availability of time

It takes lot of time in reviewing an article depending upon the type and quality of article. The average time is considered to be 5 hours in single article reviewing. Accept the invitation only if you have sufficient time to review the article thoroughly. In case of any dilemma, inform the editor immediately and suggest him to look for someone else.

  • Avoid articles from the authors with full disclosure

It is quite expected to get informed decisions in case a reviewer already has any kind of disclosure with the author. Like, if you have any kind of professional or personal connection with the author or have previously worked in any form with the author, than it is expected to influence your reviews.

Keep all these points in mind before accepting any review invite from the editor.

Conducting the Review

Reviewing is a confidential process. The article that comes to you for review should not be disclosed to a third party. If you wish to discuss the article with your colleagues or students, inform the editor prior to disclosure. Many editors also take additional comments from the people other than reviewer but they are also asked to keep the process confidential.

Reviewer is not allowed to contact the author.

The final decision of the editor will be influenced by the recommendations made by your review, so you are liable to be asked for the evaluation of the article on the basis of certain pre-defined criteria. Following are the basic points on the basis of which the reviewers are expected to evaluate the articles:

– Originality

Besides being original, it is important for the article to be interesting to get the approval for publication. It should add something to the already existing content. Don’t forget to keep the research factor in mind. You can take help of tools like Scopus to find the related reviews. If the research already exists, than inform the editor along with providing the references of the previous similar work.

– Structure

The article should meet all the guidelines and should contain the necessary elements such as title, introduction, abstract, methodology, results, and conclusions.

  • Title- It should clearly describe the article.
  • Abstract- The content of the article should be clearly reflected. If the abstract is in the form graphical presentation, check the content thoroughly and add suggestions wherever possible. For more information, check the following links- External link graphical abstracts and External link highlights.
  • Introduction- It should clearly state the motive behind the research. It should include the summary, experiments, hypothesis (es) and general experimental design or methods conducted by the author to derive the conclusion.
  • Method- The methods used to collect the data should be explained accurately. The author should be able to answer the questions raised. The article should identify the followed procedures. The author should have sufficient information to replicate the research. The newly used methods, equipments and materials should be explained in detail. The type of data recorded should be clearly stated along with the precise measurements and appropriate sampling.
  • Results- All the discoveries found in the research should be clearly mentioned in a logical sequence by the author. The reviewer must check if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. The statistical data should be accurate. In case of any dissatisfaction, inform the editor about the same. This section should not include the interpretation of the results.
  • Conclusion/Discussion- The claims supported by the results should seem reasonable. The authors should explain the relation of results with expectations and earlier research. The conclusion must have added something to the cannon of the knowledge.
  • Language- The article should be in user friendly and English language. Any kind of grammatical errors that tend to hinder the understanding towards science should be brought in the notice of the editor. Also, check if the tables and figures are really important part of the article or not. Don’t forget to check the accuracy and consistency of the figures used to describe the data such as width of the bars in the charts should be same; scales on axis should be logical, etc.


– Previous Research

The articles based on previous researches must have proper and accurate references from the past works. Mention if any of the works have been skipped or omitted.

– Ethical Issues

Plagiarism: In case of any doubt of copied article, inform the editor and provide him the references of the work from which the article has been copied.

Fraud: Although, it is difficult to find the fraudster, but in case of any suspicious activity regarding the integrity of the content, let the editor know about it.

Once the evaluation of the article has been completed, prepare a report. The report should contain certain necessary elements like the points reminding the details of the article to the editor and ensuring your understanding towards the article.

Courteous and constructive commentary which excludes any personal remarks or details including your name is recommended. Highlight all the deficiencies along with proper reasoning behind them. Elaborate your judgement along with explaining the reasons behind your comments to both the editor and authors. It should be clearly indicated whether your comments are the conclusions derived from data or is the personal opinion.

While making recommendations, keep the categories in mind used by the editor to classify the article:


  • Rejected due to poor quality, or out of scope
  1. Accept without revision
  2. Accept but needs revision (either major or minor)