Malaysian Multidisciplinary Journal

Guideline for Editor and Reviewer


As an editor of the editorial board you will be contributing greatly to the prestige of our journal and the high standards of Peer review. The role of the editor in scholarly publishing is the management of the Peer review of manuscript by reviewers. The editors for the publications of the International Academy publishing are responsible for the consistency and reputation of our journal. By assuring the selection of appropriate reviewers to identify quality manuscripts, and by efficiently managing the Peer review process the quality and value of our publications are increased. International Academy publishing requires the Peer review of all papers that appear in our journal and papers are selected for Publication on the basis of novelty, quantity and appropriateness.


ASSIGNING EDITOR:


The Managing editor will assign and editor the manuscript based on a submission’s subject area, Editor has to take or accept or reject a decision with the proper common and inform the Managing editor within time limit.


REVIEWER:


The assigned reviewer has to review manuscripts as per their field. After the complete observation the reviewer has to give necessary common and marks as per our review form and send back to the Managing editor within the time limit.


REVIEW:


The editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare but entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage or insufficiently original, have serious scientific laws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Should the editor decide to not assign reviewers but instead reject the submission. he / she is required to provide comments to be written to the author.


Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to preferably three but at least two experts for review. Suggestions for referees from the author are also welcome, though these recommendations may or may not be used. Editors will solicit reviewers with the title and an abstract of the submission and if accepted send review was the submission via Email. Editors should guide referees with review guidelines. Referees directly retain their reviews to the editor by email. Unless the editor makes specific arrangements with the reviewer, the deadline to return a completed review is 10 days.


MAKING DECISION:


Referees advice the editor, who is responsible for making the final decision to accept or reject the article? The Editor will determine the disposition of the manuscript, based on remarks of the reviewers, and the editor’s own assessment of the manuscript. The editor must then promptly convey this decision to the author. The author may contact the editor if instructions regarding amendments to the manuscript are unclear. The editor should be sure to never disclose the names of reviewers to authors.


THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS INCLUDE:


  • To assess the quality of the paper before Publication. This review decides whether a paper is fit for Publication.

  • To provide expert assessment of the quality and soundness of the submission under review.

  • To provide guidance to the editorial decision-maker in making an informed, fair and objective decision on whether to accept or accept subject to changes or reject.

  • To provide guidance to authors on improvements to their submission.


IMPORTANCE OF PEER REVIEWING PROCESS:


Peer review is an essential part of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Peer-review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer reviewers need to recognize the importance of their role and commit to contributing high quality work to the process of publishing scholarly research.


PROMPTNESS:


Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a paper, or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process. If a selected referee agrees to review a paper, they should then adhere to timelines set by the editor.


CONFIDENTIALITY:


Any papers received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.


STANDARDS OF OBJECTIVITY :


Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.


STUDY ETHICS:


Reviewers are encouraged to comment on ethical questions and possible research misconduct raised by submissions like unethical Research Design, insufficient detail on patient consent of protection of a research subject including animals.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SOURCES:


Reviewers are encouraged to be alert to redundant Publication and plagiarism. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.


DISCLOSURE and CONFLICT OF INTEREST:


Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewers own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive , collaborative, for other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or Institutions connected to the papers.