Peer Review Guidelines

NDC E-JOURNAL encourages reviewers to help authors improve their manuscript. The report should give constructive analysis to authors, particularly where revisions are recommended. While expectations vary by discipline, some core aspects that should be critiqued by reviewers may include as follows.

Questions for Research Article:

  • Is the title of the research paper all-encompassing, dynamic and precise?
  • Are the research questions valid?
  • Are the methods and study design appropriate to answer the research question/s?
  • Does the research paper contain a hypothesis or major argument clearly articulated in the introduction?
  • Has the research paper followed ethical approach/es in data collection?
  • Has the research paper discussed relevant literature in finding gaps and substantiating its justification?
  • Has the research paper collected sufficient primary information on the subject-matter?
  • Are any statistical tests used appropriately and correctly reported?
  • Are the figures and tables clear and do they accurately represent the results?
  • Are all citations in this research paper relevant and appropriate?
  • Do the results support the conclusions? Or, are the arguments in this research paper substantiated by valid evidence?
  • Are the limitations of the research acknowledged?
  • Is the abstract an accurate summary of the research and results?
  • Is the language clear and understandable?

Questions for Review Article:

  • Is the title of the article appropriate and clear?
  • Is the abstract specific, representative of the article, and in the correct form?
  • Is the purpose of the article made clear in the introduction?
  • Do you find errors of fact and interpretation? (Check the references the author cites)
  • Is all the discussion relevant?
  • Has the author cited the pertinent, and only the pertinent, literature? If the author has included inconsequential references, or references that are not pertinent, suggest deleting them.
  • Have any ideas been overemphasized or underemphasized? Suggest specific revisions.
  • Should some sections of the manuscript be expanded, condensed, or omitted?
  • Are the author’s statements clear? Challenge ambiguous statements. Suggest by examples how clarity can be achieved, but do not merely substitute your style for the author’s.
  • What underlying assumptions does the author have?
  • Has the author been objective in his or her discussion of the topic?
  • Is the language clear and understandable?

To boost up the publication process of the NDC E-JOURNAL, online Review Form should be submitted by the reviewers on or before the agreed deadline. Reviewers should contact NDC E-JOURNAL if they are unable to meet the deadline so that an alternative date can be arranged.

NDC E-JOURNAL wants reviewers to focus their reports on objectively critiquing the relevance, originality, importance, and clarity aspects of the submission, including the soundness of the methodology and whether the conclusions can be supported by the results. Comments may also be given on innovation and the potential impact of the work. At the end of their review, we request reviewers to recommend one of the following actions:

  • Publish Unaltered
  • Consider after Minor Changes
  • Consider after Major Changes
  • Reject: Manuscript is flawed or not sufficiently novel

However, it is important to note that the overall decision for publication will be made by the Editorial Board.