Peer Review Process
Manuscripts submitted by the authors are subjected to a preliminary screening based on the scope of the journal and the quality of the content of the manuscript. The manuscripts that are cleared by the initial screening will then undergo a double-blind peer review process. Two reviewers in the area of specialization concerned are assigned by the Managing Editor in consultation with the Editor in Chief or the relevant Associate Editor to carry out the review process based on the journal’s evaluation criteria. If there are discrepancies between the comments of the two reviewers, the manuscript will be sent to a third reviewer. The editorial team then make a final decision for acceptance or rejection of the manuscript, solely based on evaluation reports from the reviewers.
Instructions to Peer Reviewers
Ceylon Journal of Science relies on the expertise of academic reviewers to maintain its high editorial standards. The Editorial Board of the Ceylon Journal of Science expects the peer reviewers to ensure the following requirements in a manuscript:
- The study is original and, well designed and executed.
- Presentation of methods will enable replication.
- Data are unambiguous and properly analyzed.
- Conclusions are supported by the findings.
- New knowledge is contributed to the field of study.
Peer reviewers are also requested to contemplate the following ethical considerations;
If the reviewer felt that his/her expertise in the subject of the article is limited, it is his/her responsibility to make their degree of competence clear to the Editor and decline the offer. 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 overall assessment of the assigned manuscript.
Impartiality and Integrity
Reviewer comments and conclusions should be based on an objective and impartial consideration of the facts, without being biased personally or professionally. All comments by reviewers should be based solely on the manuscript’s scientific merit, originality, and quality of writing as well as on its relevance to the scope of the journal.
Timeliness and Responsiveness
Reviewers are responsible for acting promptly, adhering to the instructions provided, and to complete the review process within 3 weeks. For detailed guidelines for reviewers of scientific journal publications please visit: http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/entire_whitepaper.pdf
- 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 (within 3 weeks of entrusting the assignment). If unable to do so, the reviewer should 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.
- Maintain the confidentiality of the review process by not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed manuscript.
- Alert the Editors to any potential personal or financial conflict of interest and decline the review offer accordingly.
- Determine scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work and suggest ways to improve it.
- 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.
- Prevent publishing incorrect or flawed research or studies that cannot be validated by others.
- Be alert to any failure to cite relevant work by other scientists.
- Follow the reviewer’s report form strictly.
Submission of Complaints to ensure Unbiased Reviewing
Any complaints 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 sub-committee (from the Editorial Board) to discuss and recommend actions to be taken in order to resolve the matter and to ensure unbiased reviewing.
COPE’s Guidelines & Flowcharts
Ceylon 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: https://publicationethics.org/files/u2/Best_Practice.pdf