Instructions to Peer Reviewers

JAS- SL relies on the time and expertise of academic reviewers to maintain its high editorial standards. JAS – SL Editorial Board requests the peer reviewers to ensure the following requirements in a submitted manuscript:

  1. Research or review paper is well designed and executed.
  2. Presentation of methods will permit replication.
  3. Data are unambiguous and properly analyzed.
  4. Conclusions are supported by data.
  5. New knowledge is added to the field of study

Peer reviewers also have important responsibilities towards authors, editors, and readers. Please consider them carefully.

Competence

Reviewers who realize that their expertise in the subject of the article is limited have a responsibility to make their degree of competence clear to the Editor. 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 authoritative assessment.

Impartiality and Integrity

Reviewer comments and conclusions should be based on an objective and impartial consideration of the facts, exclusive of being bias personally or professionally. All comments by reviewers should be based solely on the paper’s scientific merit, originality, and quality of writing as well as on its relevance to Scope of the JAS – Sri Lanka.

Timeliness and Responsiveness

Reviewers are responsible for acting promptly, adhering to the instructions for completing a review, and completing the review within the requested time frame. These guidelines are adapted from the Council of Science Editors White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/entire_whitepaper.pdf

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Provide written, unbiased feedback on the scholarly merits and scientific value of the work, together with rationale for your opinion.
  • Provide your review immediately within 14 days. If you cannot do so please contact Coordinating Editor of JAS-SL.
  • Indicate if the writing is clear, concise, and relevant. Rate the work’s composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to readers.
  • Avoid personal comments or criticism.
  • Refrain from direct author contact.
  • Maintain the confidentiality of the review process by not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper at all.
  • Alert the Editor to any potential personal or financial conflict of interest you may have and decline to review when a possibility of a conflict exists.
  • Determine scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work and suggest ways to improve it.
  • Avoid comments to authors directly on acceptance or rejection of the paper; include such remarks as confidential comments for editors.
  • Note any ethical concerns, such as substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published article or any manuscript concurrently submitted elsewhere.
  • Ensure that published articles meet standards of the JAS-SL.
  • Protect readers from incorrect or flawed research or studies that cannot be validated by others.
  • Be alert to any failure to cite relevant work by other scientists.
  • Strictly follow the reviewer’s report form given by the Coordinating Editor.