PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Manuscripts submitted by the authors are subject to a preliminary screening by the Editorial Staff based on appropriateness of the theme and the quality of the content of the manuscript. Those manuscripts that are cleared by the initial screening will then undergo a double-blind peer review process. Two reviewers in the same or related field are assigned by the Managing Editor in consultation with Editor in Chief or the Editorial Board to carry out the review based on the journal’s evaluation criteria. Based on the evaluation report of the reviewers, the editorial team then make a final decision for acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.
INSTRUCTIONS TO PEER REVIEWERS
Ceylon Journal of Science relies on the time and expertise of academic reviewers to maintain its high editorial standards. Ceylon Journal of Science Editorial Board requests the peer reviewers to ensure the following requirements in a submitted manuscript:
1. Research or review paper is well designed and executed.
2. Presentation of methods will enable replication.
3. Data are unambiguous and properly analyzed.
4. Conclusions are supported by data.
5. New knowledge is contributed to the field of study
Peer reviewers also have important responsibilities towards authors, editors, and readers. Please consider them carefully. Some are listed below:
Reviewers who realize that their expertise in the subject of the article is limited have a responsibility to make their degree of competence clear to the Editor. Although reviewers need not be experts in every aspect of the content, the assignment should be accepted only if they have adequate expertise to provide an authoritative assessment of the assigned manuscript.
Impartiality and Integrity
Reviewer comments and conclusions should be based on an objective and impartial consideration of the facts, exclusive of being bias personally or professionally. All comments by reviewers should be based solely on the paper’s scientific merit, originality, and quality of writing as well as on its Relevance to Scope of the journal.
Timeliness and Responsiveness
Reviewers are responsible for acting promptly, adhering to the instructions provided, and completing the review within the requested time frame of 3 weeks. For detailed guidelines to reviewers of scientific journal publications please visit: councilscienceeditors.org
- Provide written, unbiased feedback on the scholarly merits and scientific value of the work, together with rationale for reviewer’s opinion.
- Provide reviewer’s review promptly or definitely within 21 days. If you are unable to do so please contact the Managing Editor immediately.
- Indicate whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant. Rate the work’s composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to readers. Avoid personal comments or criticisms.
- Refrain from directly contacting the author unless it’s recommended by the Managing Editor.
- Maintain the confidentiality of the review process by not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper at all.
- Alert the Editors to any potential personal or financial conflict of interest the reviewer may have and decline to review when a possibility of a conflict exists.
- Determine scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work and suggest ways to improve it.
- Avoid comments to authors directly on acceptance or rejection of the paper; include such remarks as confidential comments for editors.
- Note any ethical concerns, such as substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published articles.
- Ensure that published articles meet standards of the Ceylon Journal of Science.
- Protect readers from incorrect or flawed research or studies that cannot be validated by others.
- Be alert to any failure to cite relevant work by other scientists.
- Strictly follow the reviewer’s report form given by the Managing Editor.
SUBMISSIONS FROM MEMBERS OF EDITORIAL BOARD TO ENSURE UNBIASED REVIEWING
Complaints from the members of the Editorial Board, Managing Editor and Assistant Managing Editor of Ceylon Journal of Science regarding the reviewing of manuscripts should be submitted directly to the Editor-in-Chief (email@example.com OR firstname.lastname@example.org). Depending on the nature of the complaint, the Editor-in-Chief will appoint a three member Editorial sub-committee to discuss and recommend actions to be taken in order to resolve the matter and to ensure unbiased reviewing.
COPE’s Guidelines & FlowchartsCeylon Journal of Science is committed to follow and apply guidelines and flowcharts of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in its reviewing and publishing process and issues.
COPE Guidelines for journal Editors: publicationethics.org