Journal reviewer Microprocessors and Microsystems, Elsevier, since 2018. . (IF:.025, 5-year IF:.861). Journal reviewer Personality and Individual Differences, Elsevier, since 2018. (IF:.005, 5-year IF:.400 (2016). Journal reviewer Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, Frontiers, since 2018. Journal reviewer Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, acrm, since 2018. Journal reviewer ieee journal of biomedical and health Informatics, ieee, since 2018. Journal reviewer biological Psychology, elsevier, since 2018.
Author reviewer, resource center
Please mail the following details given below to and after reviewing your allan application and academic background, we will inform you about the decision. Reviewer form (Signed download here. Valid id proof: ( Passport, govt id etc). Proof of Doctorate: (Degree certificate). Please send all the documents as an email attachment to our Editor in Chief. Mail sent to any other id will not be accepted. Once your Application is approved, we will update your name in our website and also will mail you. Journal reviewer Genomics, Elsevier, since 2018. (IF.910, 5-year IF:.270 (2017). Journal reviewer International journal of Disaster Risk reduction, Elsevier, since 2018. (IF:.603, 5-year IF:.916 (2016).
You may write a commentary, published alongside the paper; a citable report with remote its own doi, where you can present your views on the topic with all the possibilities of a full-fleshed article (figures, references, etc.). Open Science Scholarly journals, open Science is a peer-reviewed platform, the journals of which cover a wide range of academic disciplines and serve the world's research and scholarly communities. Upon acceptance, open Science journals will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download. Ijar is a leading global research journal catering to different subject areas. More details can be had from the journals Homepage: m, all the papers published in the journal are reviewed by a panel of reviewers for their scientific merit. The manuscript decisions are solely based on the results of the peer reviews. We invite reviewers with best academic qualification for reviewing papers in the area of their Interest. Approved reviewer will receive papers of his/ her field for the reviewing purpose.
Due to our extensive readership, the research and scholarship selected by our reviewers will ultimately have an impact on literacy in national and international classrooms. Possess a doctoral degree in a discipline related for closely to the journal. Hold a teaching or research position at a university or academic institution. Be fluent in academic and professional English. Have a strong interest in the scholarly journal. Work quickly and accurately under tight deadlines. Reviewers' names will be listed on the journal's webpage. Reviewers' papers published in our journals will have a big discount.
Step2: Login by using your username and password. Step3: Fill the personal information and cv form. Step4: Select "Join reviewer team" or "Join Editorial board" or "Join Editor-in-chief Group" you want to join. Step5: Choose journals (three journals at most) you want to join. If you have any questions, feel free to contact. Recruitment reviewers, recruitment reviewers for Scholarly journals, status: Part time. Working language: English, working style: Internet-based, payment: Volunteer job, no payment. Description, participation in the peer-review process is absolutely essential to the success and reputation of the journal. Reviewers and editors determine which works are of quality and significance.
Journal authors reviewers - royal Society of Chemistry
It aims to publish stimulating, well-written, authoritative peer-reviewed articles on all topics relevant to the broad fields of language, literature and culture. It is consciously eclectic and diverse in its range of content: works ancient and modern; all languages and literatures; and is open to a broad interpretation of text and culture. It serves a wide cross-section of interests and backgrounds, enabling the journal to place a priority on clear writing and readability. Issn print:, issn online:, join Us as a reviewer/an Editorial Member. Open Science, an independent publisher committed to ensuring peer-reviewed research, is Open Access it your provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
As a new publisher, it has started to call for reviewers. Reviewer is expected to exercise his/her expertise and knowledge to critically analyze the content of the manuscript. Impartial, fair and constructive suggestions which can help improve the manuscript are always anticipated. A reviewer must be an expert in his/her field, should have in depth knowledge of his field and should have been actively involved in reviewing manuscript for other journals or have an experience in reviewing scientific papers. When you successfully become one of our reviewers, later we may also invite you to join our editorial board. If you find yourself eligible, please join. Steps: Step1: Please pay a visit to m/common/createaccount create an account if you haven't registered yet.
The following are the steps that each manuscript of micr undergo during the process of the peer review: All submissions are reviewed by internal editorial team to ensure adherence to micr editorial policies and are then assigned to an Editor for evaluation. The Editor decides whether reviews from appropriate independent experts / reviewers are needed to evaluate the manuscript. Two external reviewers evaluate majority of micr submissions, but it is up to the handling Editor to determine the number of reviews required. Once the reviews have been received, the editor makes a decision to accept or reject a manuscript, or to request revisions from the author in response to the reviewers comments. If the decision is Minor revision or Major revision, authors will be given 21 days to resubmit the revised manuscript. Reviewers responsibility, the reviewer should maintain confidentiality about the content of the unpublished manuscript and uphold the highest standard of ethics during the peer-review process.
The reviewer should inform the editor about the potential personal or financial conflict of interest, if such exist. Reviewer should provide a clear and concise un-biased feedback and should avoid personal criticism or comments to authors about the acceptance or rejection. The comments should be constructive and help the authors to shape the manuscript to be the best it can. Journal of Medical Imaging and Case reports operates a double-blind peer review process for all the articles submitted to the journal, where both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous. As a token of appreciation for the reviewers (as the peer-review process is purely voluntary in nature micr provides a 25 discount on the article processing charge for accepted manuscripts where the reviewer is the corresponding author, if submitted within 18 months of completing the. Home journals international journal of Language, literature and Culture / join as a reviewer/an Editorial Member. International journal of Language, literature and Culture. International journal of Language, literature and Culture provides peer-reviewed, international language, literature and culture publications. Which is to promote cross-disciplinary connections and synergies and to encourage innovative research directions in language, literature and cultural studies.
The jungle, book movie review
1, march, volume 1,. 4, december, 2013-Volume 1,. 3, september, 2013-Volume 1,. 2, june, 2013-Volume 1,. Journal of Medical Imaging and Case reports (micr) ensures a rigorous and unbiased peer review by the expert scientists in the area of research to maintain the high-quality editorial process for all manuscripts submitted to micr. The paper decision of article acceptance is judged by reviewers summary emphasizing the following: The objective of the study or experimental design. Appropriate implementation of methods. Discussion of results and data analysis. Novelty of the findings and conclusions having potential scientific impact.
2, march, 2016-Volume 4,. 1, january, volume 3,. 4, december, 2015-Volume 3,. 3, september, 2015-Volume 3,. 2, june, 2015-Volume 3,. 1, march, volume 2,. 4, december, 2014-Volume 2,. 3, september, 2014-Volume 2,. 2, june, 2014-Volume 2,.statement
6, november 2017-Volume 5,. 5, september 2017-Volume 5,. 4, july, 2017-Volume 5,. 3, may, 2017-Volume 5,. 2, march, 2017-Volume 5,. 1, january, volume 4,. 6, november, 2016-Volume 4,. 5, september, 2016-Volume 4,. 4, july, 2016-Volume 4,. 3, may, 2016-Volume 4,.
In the second round of reviews, both reviewers were constructive. However, the editors rejected the manuscript with boilerplate language, offering no rationale whatsoever for the decision. All in all, type not a good experience, and it is doubtful I would submit there again. Welcome to the website of the journal of Advanced Management Science. Joams aims to provide a high profile, leading edge forum for academic researchers, industrial professionals, engineers, consultants, managers, educators and policy makers working in the field to contribute and disseminate innovative new work on Advanced Management Science. All papers will be blind reviewed and accepted papers will be published quarterly, which is available online and in printed version. 2, june 2018-Volume 6,. 1, march Volume 5,.
10, celebrities With goofy hobbies Nobody, would have
Two things stood out about this process: how long it took, and lined the nastiness of one of the reviewers in round. In round 1, reviewer 1 provided only short responses to a series of questions and recommended publishing the manuscript in its present form. It is doubtful he or she read the manuscript, though. Reviewer 2 was genuinely constructive and recommended an. Reviewer 3, however, was a piece of work. The review was pompous, condescending, and not remotely helpful. On the plus side, the review was so over-the-top that it was good for a lot of laughs with colleagues. It's worth noting that the paper was not sent to that reviewer for the second round of reviews.