Scientific Research and information

Make the best use of Researched information from 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals operated by 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.

Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts

How to become 5-Star OMICS International reviewers

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 editors written instructions on the journals 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 editors 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 International 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

Reviewer scientific credits

Certificate of felicitation at relevant OMICS International conference.
No Open Access publication fee for the published article.
For more details on OMICS International conferences: http://omicsonline.org/international-scientific-conferences/
For further queries regarding editor scientific credits please contact
E-mail : contact.omics@omicsonline.org / scientificcredits@omicsonline.org
Fax: 650-618-1414