Welcome to International Centre for Integrated Development Research
toplink
 

Reviewers Policy

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
As part of our quality control measures, each article sent to ICIDR for publication passes through the hands/scrutiny of three (3) experts/academics in related discipline: two reviewers, who are not members of the editorial board and an editor using the double blinded peer review technique. The essence of the measures is neither to jeopardize the research capability of a researcher, to dwindle the need for the article nor manipulate its influence in the public sphere but to enhance the quality of the paper. Therefore, the assessors must be objective in their evaluation.

Importance of Peer Reviewing
Peer review is an essential part of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer Reviewers need to recognize the importance of their role and commit to contributing high quality work to the process of publishing scholarly research.

Promptness
Any selected referee 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 referee agrees to review a paper, they should then adhere to timelines set by the editor.

Confidentiality
Any paper received for review must be treated as confidential document. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Study Ethics
Reviewers are encouraged 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
Reviewers are encouraged 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.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own 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.