ETFLIN journals follow efficient, double-blind peer review guided by COPE Ethical Guidelines.
This guide and policy is intended to assist you in reviewing manuscripts submitted to ETFLIN journals. The steps that the reviewer must take are detailed so that the articles can be evaluated properly and efficiently. If you have further questions, contact our Editorial Office via halo@etflin.com.
We notice that the publication process takes a lengthy time owing to the peer-review step, which authors have expressed to various publishers. ETFLIN's editorial and management teams have worked hard to enhance quality and optimize the peer review time by implementing an online reviewing system. Ensuring the quality of peer review is of utmost importance to us. As such, we require that all reviewers submit their comments within 14 business days. However, we understand that certain circumstances may arise that require additional time. If this is the case, we ask that reviewers communicate with us promptly to discuss any potential delays. While we prioritize timeliness, we will always prioritize the thoroughness and thoughtfulness of the review process. So, we are willing to allow for a longer duration to ensure that the peer-review process remains robust and insightful.
All manuscripts submitted to ETFLIN journals go through double-blind peer review to ensure an equitable process. This is done to prevent communication between the reviewer(s) and the author(s). Reviewers are not permitted to contact the author in any manner, you should consider the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers before accepting and going through the peer-review process.
In addition to possessing expertise in the subject matter, reviewers should meet certain criteria to ensure a high level of competence and credibility in their evaluations. The following criteria are recommended for reviewers:
Peer review is conducted via an online reviewing system, with a link to the reviewer's email and a peer-review request. The peer-review form includes six basic points: writing/language, research background, methodology, results and discussion, conclusion, and references. Other assessments might be added by reviewer(s) on "Other comments" input. A slider input is provided to score the manuscript on each basic point. The score means the following:
This form contains 6 comment boxes that are related to the manuscript quality and a general comment box. The following questions may help you correct the paper you are reviewing.
Language and style
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?
Is the research design appropriate and adequately described?
Are the results clearly presented and discussed?
Are the conclusions supported by the results?
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?
Other comments
This section can contain any suggestions needed to improve the quality of the paper you are reviewing.
We are aware that the reviewers worked hard to help improve the paper's quality. As a result, below are some of the benefits of becoming an ETFLIN reviewer:
Articles authored by editors can be published through an objective and transparent process. These articles must undergo review by independent reviewers and, if possible, be managed by a guest editor.
The process undergone by these articles is the same as that for regular articles, with minimal involvement from the internal editorial team (except for managing and copy-editing). The articles still undergo a double-blind peer-review process, initially labeled not as 'Editorial' articles to reduce the risk of conflicts of interest and to maintain the same review standards as other articles.
These types of articles can only be authored by Editor-in-Chief, Advisory Editor, and Sectional Editor, where the content must present viewpoints or analyses related to the journal's scope and have scientific impact. Such articles should not be used solely for notifications or advertisements, including for personal or specific institutional interests.
Reviewers are strongly advised against making recommendations to authors to include personal references that do not substantially enhance the article's overall content and quality. Authors maintain the prerogative to decline such suggestions, and it is incumbent upon the editor to effectively communicate this to the author. The peer-review process should prioritize the relevance and scholarly significance of references to ensure the integrity and credibility of the article.
It is imperative that reviewers refrain from attempting to contact authors intentionally or unintentionally. The peer-review process relies on a degree of impartiality and confidentiality to ensure fairness and objectivity. Unsolicited contact with authors can potentially compromise the anonymity and integrity of the review process. Reviewers should instead direct their feedback and queries through the appropriate editorial channels or peer review form, respecting the established procedures for maintaining a constructive and unbiased review process.
Reviewers are strictly prohibited from manipulating their review outcomes for personal or institutional interests, including pursuing competitive objectives. Maintaining the integrity of the peer-review process is paramount to ensuring fairness and objectivity in scholarly publishing, and any attempt to compromise this fundamental principle is considered a breach of ethical conduct.
Reviewers are obligated to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts they review and refrain from using or disclosing their content prior to the manuscript's publication or obtaining written permission from the author. This commitment to confidentiality safeguards the integrity of the peer-review process, ensuring that unpublished research remains secure until it is ready for dissemination or until explicit consent is granted by the author.
Reviewers are expected to provide professional and constructive feedback, refraining from using language or perspectives that may be discriminatory or unethical towards the authors. Maintaining a respectful and unbiased tone in their comments is essential to upholding the ethical standards of peer review and fostering a supportive and inclusive scholarly environment. See our policy related to harassment.
As a publisher, we create, store, and utilize cookies to enhance the features and services we provide. Several necessary cookies are implemented as part of the website's functionality.
_ga | etflin.com
The purpose of this cookie, set by Google Analytics, is to track the number of site visitors by remembering whether or not you have previously visited our website.
The following cookies are utilized to identify and authenticate users. By utilizing our service and registering an account within our system, you are consenting to the use of the following cookie. We do not share this data to any third party.
username | etflin.com
We employ this cookie to recognize users who have logged into the user system, ensuring that the data you manage is labeled with your username.
email | etflin.com
Email is utilized as our communication tool to send notifications, conduct initial registration verification, and account filtering.
name | etflin.com
We utilize your name to display on the website menu, indicating that you have successfully logged into the system.
token | etflin.com
We use a token to authenticate and identify your login session.
We Revolutionize Sciences, We Publish Sciences, We Are Scientist
ETFLIN