Reviewer’s Responsibilities
Reviewer is responsible to both the author and the editor in regard to the manuscript. Peer review is the principal mechanism by which the quality of research is judged. Most funding decisions in science and the academic advancement of scientists are based on peer-reviewed publications.
Peer reviewer responsibilities towards author
• Providing written, unbiased feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work
• Comments given by the reviewers should be clear and relevant to the subject and accurate which creates interest to the authors.
• Personal & Financial conflicts must be avoided.
• Review process should be confidentially maintained.
Peer reviewer responsibilities towards editor
• Notifying the editor immediately if unable to review in a timely manner and providing the names of other potential reviewers if possible.
• Following the editor's written instructions on the journal's expectations of the submitted work
• Determining scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it and giving decision based on rating
• Provide clear and levelheaded reason for giving decision based on common ethics
• Personal & Financial conflicts should be alerted
• Stave off direct contact with the author without editor’s permission.
Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
• Confidentiality: - Reviews and reviewer comments should be held confidentially. manuscripts or copies of the process shouldn’t be retained with the reviewers after the process is commenced
• Constructive Evaluation: - Decisions and judgment should be constructive that provides legible insight to author without any controversy or inefficiencies with the review process
• Competence: -Reviewer with passable expertise will serve the purpose to complete the review. People lacking adequate expertise should feel responsible and can decline the review.
• Impartiality and Integrity: - Reviewer decision should solely depend on scientific merit, relevance to the subject, scope of the journal rather on financial, racial, ethnic origin etc… of the authors.
• Timeliness and Responsiveness: - Reviewer should be responsible to complete the review within the relevant time and should take all necessary steps to fulfill the limitations of the journal.
Reviewer Scientific Credits
OMICS Publishing Group extends its gratitude towards the editor with the CERTIFICATE of updated SCIENTIFIC CREDITS regularly through online tracking system for fulfillment of potential Editor criteria.
The editor has been judged based on
1. Exemplary time lines (ET)
2. Quality of comments (QC)
3. Total Editorials Published (TE)
4. Justified decision (JD)
5. Suggestions to Editors/Authors (SA)
Scientific Credits for OMICS Editors Scientific Credit= Average individual credits for Exemplary time lines, Quality of comments, Suggestions to Authors, Justified decision of individual
assignments × Total Editorials Published
Average credit for overall reviewed articles (AC) = ET+QC+SA+JD/4
Total Editor Scientific Credit (SC) = AC×TE
Editor Credits can be given based on the above mentioned criteria as one of the following:
1= Satisfied
2= Good
3= Very Good
4= Excellent
5=Exemplary
Example 1:
An Editor XX has published 3 editorials and scored 2 credits for Exemplary time lines, 2 credits for Quality of comments, 3 credits for suggestions to author and 3 credits for justified decision. His Scientific Credit is calculated in the following manner.
Average credit for overall handled articles, for the four responsibilities mentioned above (AC) = ET+QC+SA+JD/4
2+2+3+3/4=2.5
Total Editor Scientific Credit (SC) = AC×TE
As his annual editorials published are three, his Scientific Credit = 2.5×3=7.5
Example 2:
A reviewer ZY has published 4 editorials and scored 2 credits for Exemplary time lines, 2 credits for Quality of comments, 3 credits for suggestions to author and 3 credits for justified decision. His Scientific Credit is calculated in the following manner.
Average credit for overall handled articles, for the four responsibilities mentioned above (AC) = ET+QC+SA+JD/4
2+2+3+3/4=2.5
Total Editor Scientific Credit (SC) = AC×TE
As his annual editorials published are four, his Scientific Credit = 2.5×4=10
Special benefits to the OMICS Group Reviewers with Highest Scientific Credits
Complete waiver on registration and accommodation fee at relevant OMICS Group Conference.
Certificate of felicitation at relevant OMICS Group Conference.
No Open Access Publication fee for the published article. For more details on OMICS Group Conferences PS:http://omicsonline.org/conferencemain/
I have witnessed the growth of Journal of Proteomics & Bioinformatics , since its inception and i am very impressed with the contents and scientific rigour of the journal.
Dr. Sudhir Srivastav
OMICS Publishing Group-The future of publishing..
Dr. Dick Smith
Looking forward to working with you on proteoglycons in 2011.
Dr. John M Whitelok
Keep up the good work....
Dr. Michael Snyda
Many good publications and wee organized...
Dr. Jong Shin Yoo
Open access to the publication, open access to the data...
