Guidelines for Reviewers

Associate with journal’s editorial-house, every contributors related to the peer review progress, including reviewers, chief-editor, and board members take probity of Discovery Scientific Society’s editorial-process.

If a reviewer/editor who the contributor of peer-review progress has ethical apprehensions regarding a script sent to evaluation or finalization or gets information regards an ethic-concern subsequently after publication, they should communicate the editorial-team as early as possible. Then the editorial-team will inquire & take the final conclusion as per COPE guidelines.

The following checklist are executed at earlier and on-time of progression of peer-review process by the chief editor & editorial members. Nevertheless, the concerns regards peer-review from editor & reviewer must still be conveyed to the chief editor as well as editorial-in-house.

1. Studies engaging cell-lines, animals and human subjects requires permissions & approval regarding ethics
2. Piracy, duplication, malpractice, include earlier-published illustrations need necessary permission from the holder of copyright
3. The materials & methods division includes registration details of clinical-trials

The editor & reviewers must considering the following checks while make a positive decision & final acceptance of the manuscript:

1. Authors should be disclosed the manuscript concerned conflicts-of-interest before the submission & and it must be detailed in specific section of the article
2. The core-finding of the research, significances of the research findings and unbiased discussion should be embedded very precisely by authors
3. The methodology & data engaged in the work required to be clearly presented in full-length detail in the manuscript, subsequently future researchers reproduce their study
4. The data should fits with scope of the submitted journal
5. The sufficient scientific & technique feedbacks provided by the reviewers were appropriate to evaluate the submission

Potential Conflict of Interests

Discovery Scientific Society encourage transparency, & who are all participated in the peer-review progress should judiciously obey and disclose the conflict of interest while contributing to peer-review, manuscript finalization and publication of work. Before commencing to peer-review, any association which restrict & interfere the data assessment, peer-review progress & manuscript decision-making should be declared. The editor or reviewer or both trusts that the presence of any conflicts, which should not influence the review-progress or manuscript finalization process; if so, The editor or reviewer should get rid of themselves in the review-pipeline to evade the sensitivity of conflicts of interest in addition to shield the integrity regarding to peer-review progress.

Conflicts of Interest (Types)

The editor or reviewer or neither one should not participate in the pipeline of peer-review of a work submitted via researchers those are associated with the own organization/University, by authors those are the collaborators of the work, or by some authors those are all personally well known, spouse or any members of the family. The editor or reviewer or both should not participate in the pipeline of peer-review of a work submitted via authors those are all represent in the current time, or represented as a tutor or research mentor or had past relationship or co-author of any publication in the past 3 years.

Professional or Financial Conflicts

Financial conflicts contain some specialized or commercial associations, financial or profitable benefits, or other conflicts are observed as possibly influence to peer-review process. Neither Editors nor Reviewers would get specialized or commercial associations, wages, panel membership, fiscal, scholarship & allowance from a firm or firms’ welfare through the research outcomes or some-other features of the script-data, stipends, or grasp other benefits in an organization whose merchandise detailed in the manuscript, or privileges of intellectual properties i.e., royalty, copyright, and patent, subsequently their influence or support. Where may be observed as possibly familiarizing unfairness to peer-review progress, the editor & reviewers should not contribute in the peer-review & decision-making progress of the study.

Other Conflicts

Further conflicts regarding actual or possibly noticed influencing the decision-making and outcomes of peer-review progress must be self-confessed. According to the Discovery Scientific Society’s editorial policies, manuscript originality, excellence and suitability of the journal should be evaluated by editors & reviewers. Discovery Scientific Society aims to construct a journal’s structure as comprehensive and diverse; and has no room for discernment centered on gender, character, sex, race, sexual orientation, country of origin, color, religion, socio-economic grade, age and physical ability. Personal biases should be disclosed by editors & reviewers which may influence or disturb the peer-review progress. If the editor or reviewer or both, with the existence of conflicts of interest in reviewing the study, a different editor or reviewer or both should be assigned. If a manuscript is submitted to the journal by the author who himself is an editor, its work should be editorially managed via another editor who doesn’t hold any conflicts of interest.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

The content of the article including abstract should keep confidential by editors & reviewers. Discovery Scientific Society Journals execute double-blind external peer-review. The identity of reviewers should not be making known to authors in their review explanations or in the technical comments of a research report given in PDF or MS Word format. Discovery Scientific Society Journals will not suggest researchers to include reviewers-comments in their-paper.