ZEGU Press Reviewers Guide

Policies

Zegu Press

/

Reviewers Guide

Becoming a ZEGU Press Reviewer

Reviewers forward their applications through the ZEGU Press coordinator.
The ZEGU Press coordinator sends the application letters to the relevant journal editors.
The relevant journal editors select potential reviewers based on their relevant subject expertise in research areas under consideration.
The editor in chief will notify the university human resources department, which will get in touch with all the candidates who have expressed interest in becoming ZEGU Press a reviewer.
Successful reviewers will receive an email alerting them that they are now part of ZEGU Press reviewers, and a link will be provided where they will be requested to open an account.

Editorial Decision

Reviewers report is meant to inform but do not determine editorial decisions.
Final decisions are reached by the editorial board of ZEGU Press journals based on all reviews, revisions, and the journal’s standards.
The ZEGU Press journal editors reviews all reviewer comments and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.
The ZEGU Press Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision and communicates it to the author.

Reviewer’s report.

The reviewer report must be written in the language in which the manuscript was written encompassing the following:

A summary of the manuscript.
Evaluation of major and minor issues.
Clear recommendation (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject).
Comments for the editor (optional).
Comments for the author (required)

Reviewers Feedback

Recommending Revision:

Where improvements are needed:

Reviewers are encouraged to state, specific changes that need to be made.
The author can then reply to each point in turn.
ZEGU Press journal editors may offer the option to recommend rejection with the possibility of resubmission, but resubmission may be the most relevant option where substantial or major revision is necessary.

Recommending Rejection

Where manuscripts have serious flaws, reviewers are encouraged to keep the feedback focused on the research and not the author. This is an extremely important part of the reviewer’s job.
The reviewer should avoid making critical confidential comments to the editor while being polite and encouraging to the author, the latter may not understand why their manuscript has been rejected.
Also, they won’t get feedback on how to improve their research and it could trigger an appeal.
Reviewers are encouraged to give constructive criticism even if recommending a rejection.
This helps developing researchers improve their work and explains to the editor why the reviewer felt the manuscript should not be published.

The Importance of Peer Reviewing to ZEGU Press

Peer review is an essential part of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the ZEGU Press journal articles’ peer review process.
Peer review assists the editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with the author, may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Peer Reviewers need to recognise the importance of their role and commit to contributing high-quality work to the process of publishing scholarly research.

Promptness to Timeframes

Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a paper, or knows that its prompt review will be impossible, should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process.
If a selected reviewer agrees to review a paper, they should then adhere to the timelines set by the respective ZEGU Press journal editor.

Confidentiality

Any papers received for review must be treated as confidential documents.
They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the respective ZEGU Press journal editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively.
Personal criticism of the author may be inappropriate.
Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Study Ethics

In ethical matters, ZEGU Press encourages reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects, including animals).

Acknowledgement of Sources

ZEGU Press encourages reviewers to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism.
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Plagiarism

If plagiarism is suspected, a thorough assessment is required to ascertain the paper’s originality.
If reviewers already knew of a very similar paper, this may be because the author overlooked it in their literature search, or because it is very recent or published in a journal slightly outside their usual field.
ZEGU Press advises reviewers to notify the author of how to emphasise the novel aspects of their study, to better differentiate it from similar research. The author may be asked to discuss their aims and results, or modify their conclusions, considering a similar article.
Of course, if the research similarities are so great that they render the work unoriginal, the reviewer may have no choice but to recommend rejection.
If a reviewer further suspects plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, but cannot recall or locate exactly what is being plagiarised, the use of anti-plagiarism software like Turnitin is encouraged.
Editors are not out to police every paper, but when plagiarism is discovered during peer review, it can be properly addressed ahead of publication.
If plagiarism is discovered only after publication, the consequences are worse for both authors and readers, because a retraction may be necessary.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

ZEGU Press requires that, unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s research without the express written consent of the author.
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

ZEGU Press Criterion that guides the reviewer in the assessment of the paper

Topic and content:

Is the topic relevant for the journal?
Is the content important to the field?
Is the work original? (If not, please give references.)

Title:

Does the title
reflect the contents of the article?

Abstract:

To what extent does the abstract reflect aspects of the study?
Background, objectives, methods, results and conclusions?

Introduction / Background:

Is the study rationale adequately described?

Objectives:

Are the study objectives clearly stated and defined?

Methodology:

To what extent is the study design appropriate and adequate for the objectives?
Is the sample size appropriate and adequately justified?
Is the sampling technique appropriate and adequately described?
How well are the methods and instruments of data collection described?
How well are techniques to minimise bias/errors documented?

Ethical Consideration:

If there are issues related to ethics, are they adequately described? (For human studies, has ethical approval been obtained?)

Analysis and Results:

Are the methods adequately described?
Are the methods of data analysis appropriate?
Do the results answer the research question?
Are the results credible?
Is statistical significance well documented (e.g. as confidence intervals or P-value)?
Are the findings presented logically with appropriate displays and explanations?

Discussion:

How well are the key findings stated?
To what extent have differences or similarities with other studies been discussed and reasons for these given?
Are the findings discussed in the light of previous evidence?
Are the implications of these findings clearly explained?
Is the interpretation warranted by and sufficiently derived from and focused on the data and results?

Conclusion(s):

Do the results justify the conclusion(s)?

References:

Are the references appropriate and relevant?
Are they up to date?
Are there any obvious, important references that should have been included and have not been?
Do the references follow the recommended style?
Are there any errors?

Writing:

Is the paper clearly written?
Is the paper presented logically (e.g. correct information in each section, logical flow of arguments)?
Are there problems with the grammar/spelling/punctuation/language?