|
Peer-review Process
In the peer-review
process, three referees independently evaluate the scientific quality of the
submitted manuscripts. The Journal uses a double-blind peer-review system.
Authors are encouraged to indicate in
referral form A
the names of three
potential reviewers, but the editors will make the final choice. The editors
are not, however, bound by these suggestions. Manuscripts should be written
so that they are intelligible to the professional reader who is not a
specialist in the particular field. They should be written in a clear,
concise, direct style. Where contributions are judged as acceptable for
publication on the basis of content, the Editor or the Publisher reserves
the right to modify the typescripts to eliminate ambiguity and repetition
and improve communication between author and reader. If extensive
alterations are required, the manuscript will be returned to the author for
revision.
The Editorial Review Process
What happens to a
manuscript once it is submitted to Pertanika? Typically, there are seven
steps to the editorial review process:
|
1. |
The executive editor and
the editorial board examine the paper to determine whether it is
appropriate for the journal and should be reviewed. If not
appropriate, the manuscript is rejected outright. |
|
2. |
The executive editor sends
the article-identifying information having been removed to
three, reviewers. Typically, one of these is from the Journal's
editorial board. Others are specialists in the subject matter
represented by the article. The executive editor asks them to
complete the review in three weeks and encloses two forms: (a)
referral form B and (b) reviewer’s comment form. Comments to
authors are about the appropriateness and adequacy of the
theoretical or conceptual framework, literature review, method,
results, and discussion. Reviewers often include suggestions for
strengthening of the manuscript. Comments to the editor are in
the nature of the significance of the work and its potential
contribution to the literature. |
|
3. |
The executive editor, in
consultation with the editor-in-chief, examines the reviews and
decides whether to reject the manuscript, invite the author(s)
to revise and resubmit the manuscript, or seek additional
reviews. Final acceptance or rejection rests with the Editorial
Board, who reserves the right to refuse any material for
publication. In rare instances, the manuscript is accepted with
almost no revision. Almost without exception, reviewers'
comments (to the author) are forwarded to the author.
If a revision is
indicated, the editor provides guidelines for attending to the
reviewers' suggestions and perhaps additional advice about
revising the manuscript. |
|
4. |
The authors decide whether
and how to address the reviewers' comments and criticisms and
the editor's concerns. The authors submit a revised version of
the paper to the executive editor along with specific
information describing how they have answered' the concerns of
the reviewers and the editor. |
|
5. |
The executive editor sends
the revised paper out for review. Typically, at least one of the
original reviewers will be asked to examine the article. |
|
6. |
When the reviewers have
completed their work, the executive editor and the
editor-in-chief examine their comments and decide whether the
paper is ready to be published, needs another round of
revisions, or should be rejected. |
|
7. |
If the
decision is to accept, the paper is in press and the article
should appear in print in approximately three to four months.
The Publisher ensures that the paper adheres to the correct
style (in-text citations, the reference list, and tables are
typical areas of concern, clarity, and grammar. The authors are
asked to respond to any queries by the Publisher. Following
these corrections, page proofs are mailed to the corresponding
authors for their final approval. At this point, only essential
changes are accepted. Finally, the article appears in the pages
of the Journal and is posted on-line. |
|
|
