Guidelines to Peer Reviewers

The foundation of academic publishing is peer review. The priorities of these regulations are to assist peer reviewers and to provide a morally acceptable summary. Having read these guidelines could enable reviewers to find answers to most of their questionnaire items as well as provide directions in completing a detailed and timely peer review report. If you have additional questions, please email us at editor@psychosocial.com or they can contact us at +91 96672 63862

The objective of Peer review:

To assist authors and guide them in building quality content and ensure that it is original, authentic, unplagiarized, and contains accurate pieces of information in their research work and avoid any discrepancies that may arise in the authors’ content.

Organize periodic virtual meetings and conferences in order to maintain transparency between peers and researchers by protecting the confidentiality of their research articles on psychosocial rehabilitation practices.

Peers help authors not only check the authenticity of the article content but also understand and interpret the author's experience and guide them in bringing the legitimate article into publication by valuing the author's article content contributions.

Peers ensure that the article content is on track and meets the requirements and standards of the Journal

• All submissions to the International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation are subjected to the double-blind peer review process. Before acknowledging to review an article and throughout the peer-review process, reviewers should consider the COPE Ethical Guidelines.
• Once the peer-reviewer receives a request for peer review, it is critical that they respond promptly, especially if they are unable to complete the review, to avoid unneeded delay in the review process.
• Peer reviewers must keep any documentation about the authors ' identities and the content of the writings confidential.
• Peer review comments should be definitive and productive, rather than confrontational or disparaging.
• Check the Authors'Guidelines to see if your manuscript meets the journal's submission standard requirements or not.
• Finalise the review and suggest the manuscript's relative strengths and weaknesses by posting your comments on the online peer-review framework.
• After reading the manuscript and evaluating its quality, you must make the following recommendation to the editor regarding publication:
  ACCEPTif the manuscript in its current form is eligible to publish
  REVISIONWhether or not the manuscript will be ready for publication after minor revisions. Please list the changes you would make.
  REJECTIf the manuscript is not appropriate for inclusion in this journal or if the number of modifications required is too high for the submission to be considered in its current form.
• Provide thoughtful comments that are appropriate to send to the authors.
• Mention the remarks to the author as an opportunity to seek confirmation and further elaboration on any unclear points.
• Verify whether you believe the manuscript's subject is particularly compelling to justify its length; if you suggest shortening, it is advantageous to the author(s) if you can identify specific areas where you believe shortening is necessary.
• It would be beneficial if you could correct the English where the technical logic is unclear.
• Once the comments have been placed or uploaded, they can be submitted to the editor, who will forward them to the author(s) for revision.
• If you are unable to finalise your report on a manuscript within the time frame agreed upon, please notify the editor so that the refereeing process is not decelerated.
• Inform the editors of any potential conflicts of interest that may influence the manuscript under evaluation.