Scientific Evaluation Guide
Before you accept or decline the invitation to evaluate the current research, read these questions, they will help you in this regard:
1- Does the current research match your exact speciality? Accept the research evaluation if you believe you can undertake a solid scientific evaluation process.
2- Do you have a potential conflict of interest with the subject or authors? Send these belongings to the editor-in-chief when answering the evaluation request.
3- Do you have enough time to evaluate the research? Evaluating research in a scientifically sober way needs a lot of time. Before committing to it, make sure you know the deadline for sending a research evaluation.
How to Peer Review for CBERJ
The evaluation of the reviewer should be a comprehensive critique of the research submitted for publication, and it should be in the form of a full-fledged report rather than a few short sentences. CBERJ does not require a specific model for the structure of the scientific evaluation report, but the following format of the report can be used:
- Major issues
- Minor issues
We encourage reviewers to help authors improve their manuscripts. The report should give constructive analysis to authors, particularly where revisions are recommended. Where reviewers do not wish authors to see certain comments, these can be added to the confidential comments to the editor in chief. While expectations vary by discipline, some core aspects that reviewers should critique may include:
- Is the topic of the current research previously mentioned?
Is the study sample size sufficient?
Is there a need for ethical approvals for conducting the research, or do such approvals need?
Are the study methods and design of experiments sufficient to answer the study questions?
Do the study experiments and their design contain good control groups?
Were all the requirements for conducting experiments, materials and equipment included and explained well, through which the research can be re-applied?
Are the statistical tests used sufficient, and were their results correctly included?
Are the figures and tables adequately explained, and do they represent the results accurately?
Were the researches carried out previously and included in the current study adequately discussed, and were the results of studies related to the recent research well compared?
Is there an incorrect inclusion of sources, who was using a source in a topic different from the place in which it was included, or did the researcher use his previous studies to a large extent in the current study?
Do the results of the current study support the conclusions paragraph?
Were the limitations of conducting the research mentioned?
Is the summary an accurate summary of the current research and its results without repetition?
Is the current research language clear and understandable?
To help researchers make corrections quickly, the reviewer must send a copy of the research evaluated through the research tracking system forwarded for publication in the CBERJ. The reviewer should contact the CBERJ, as he could not estimate the research on time to adjust to the final time for submitting the evaluated research.
We encourage the reviewer to constructive criticism of the research under examination and scrutiny and to focus in his report on objectivity in criticism of the scientific aspects of research, which includes, for example, the integrity of research methods and methodology. At the end of the research evaluation process, the reviewer will be asked the following question, which of these options do you recommend regarding the current research:
- It needs major corrections
- It needs moderate corrections
- Unable to review the search
Confidentiality in the Research Evaluation Process
The research sent for evaluation must be kept strictly confidential throughout the evaluation process. The scientific evaluator should not share information about the research under evaluation or discuss its content with anyone outside the research evaluation process. The reviewer may, upon his request, consult with one of his colleagues related to the research topic and who are trusted with confidentiality and concealment of the research topic being evaluated. In such cases, the researcher must first contact the CBERJ or its editor-in-chief and notify the colleague''''''''s name he wishes to communicate within this regard, with his information included in the "comment to the editor" field in the evaluation report.
Conflict of Interests
The reviewer should refuse to review the research in one of the following cases:
1- Has a special commercial interest in the research topic.
2- He previously discussed or expressed his opinion and advice on the subject of the research with the researcher.
3- When he feels his ability to be objective
Applications to be Scientific Reviewers
CBERJ appreciates the applications submitted for inclusion as a scientific reviewer. The editorial board of the CBERJ is responsible for selecting the reviewers based on the research itself. In each case, the appropriate reviewers are invited based on their specialization or what they have previously published research. To make sure that you can be selected as a scientific reviewer, please update your contact information periodically, as for those who are not registered on the journal''''''''''''''''s website and who wish to be selected as a scientific reviewer in the BERJ, they must register on the site as a researcher.