Reviewer's Guideline
Benefits of MAP's reviewers
Reviewers who provide timely, thorough peer-review reports receive vouchers entitling them to a discount on the article processing charge (APC) of their next publication in any Madison Academic Press (MAP) journal, in appreciation of the work done.
To ensure the quality and motivation of the unseen and unrewarded efforts of reviewers, MAP is offering the following benefits to all active reviewers who review for MAP journals.
A discount voucher code entitles you to a reduction in the APC of a future submission to any MAP journal. Vouchers are matched with individuals and non-transferable. Please mention the code during the submission. Multiple vouchers can be combined on one submission. Vouchers must be applied before an APC invoice issued.
Reviewers' Responsibilities
To contribute to the orderly running and reputation of the journal as well as its quality-driven mission by reviewing the manuscripts objectively and timely.
To maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author and not retain or copy the manuscript. Reviewers should not use or disseminate any information, arguments, or interpretations contained in an unpublished manuscript, except with the consent of the author.
To support the judgment adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments.
To be aware (to the best of one’s ability) of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between the reviewer and author) and to alert the editor to these, if necessary withdrawing their services for that manuscript.
If reviewers become aware of scientific misconduct, fraud, plagiarism or any other unethical behavior related to the manuscript, they should bring those concerns to the Associate Editor or Editor-in-Chief immediately.
Single-Blind Peer Review
MAP uses single-blind peer review, which means the reviewer's name is NOT disclosed to the author. Reviewers should be careful to remain unknown to the authors.
Peer-review Invitation
We need help with appraising a manuscript from reviewers. Manuscripts submitted to MAP journals are required to be critiqued by minimum two reviewers. An invitation email will be sent and requesting reviewers to accept or decline the invitation through our submission system. You may also suggest alternative reviewers if you have to reject the invitation. Reviewers who accept the invitation are requested to rate the manuscript thoroughly based upon MAP’s rating criteria and provide an overall recommendation for publication of the manuscript. Reviewers can also provide a constructive review report. The editorial team is responsible for the final decision to accept or decline a manuscript, based on the reviewers' comments. If you have any comment you want to make, either on a manuscript you have reviewed and our decision on it or on our review process in general, we would be pleased to hear from you.
Conflicts of Interests
When manuscripts are assigned to reviewers for peer-reviews, reviewers must disclose to editors or managing editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their reviews of the manuscript. Reviewers should recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts if the following potential conflicts exist:
have a recent publication or current submission with any author;
share or recently shared an affiliation with any author;
collaborate or recently collaborated with any author;
have a close personal connection to any author;
have a financial interest in the subject of the work;
feel unable to be objective.
Review Rating
Reviewers rate articles based on the following aspects:
APPROPRIATENESS: How would you rate the appropriateness of this paper to the journal?
CLARITY: For the reasonably well-prepared reader, is it clear what was done and why? Is the paper well-written and well-structured? How would you rate the quality of this paper?
ORIGINALITY: Does it address a new problem or one that has received little attention? Alternatively, does it present significant benefits? How would you rate the originality of the content of this paper?
SUBSTANCE: Does this paper have enough substance? Does it benefit from its methodology and results?
SIGNIFICANCE: How would you rate the significance this paper contributes to the journal?
IMPACT OF RESULTS: How would you rate the results and the supporting evidence technically of this paper?
LANGUAGE: Is the paper written in good English, well presentation and layout?
Recommendations
Recommendations are provided as follows:
Accept Submission: The paper is accepted without any future changes
Minor Revision: The paper is in principle accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments. Authors are given seven days for minor revisions.
Major Revision: The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point by point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. Usually, only one round of major revisions is allowed. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within ten days and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments.
Decline: The article has serious flaws, makes no original contribution, and the paper is rejected with no offer of resubmission to the journal.
Writing Your Review Report
Reviewers are welcome to write detailed review report using the submission system. The review report is vital in helping the editors to make final decisions. Review reports should be specific enough for authors to respond, including the critiques of the quality of the data, the level of support for the conclusion, figures and tables, etc. (referring to lines if specific enough).