Instruction to Reviewers

© 2017 IIP
WebSite design by
IIP IT Department
Indian Institute of Psychometry
Home Aims & Scope Editorial Board Ethical Policy Abstract Temporary
Investigate the journalís content

Refer to the Instructions for Authors to see if the paper meets the submission criteria of the journal (e.g. length, scope, and presentation). Complete the review questions or report form to indicate the relative strengths or weaknesses of the paper.

The following points to be kept in mind while reading the manuscript:

          1. The article is original.
          2. The research helps to create further scope of research in this subject.
          3. The research significantly builds on (the authorís) previous work.
          4. The paper fits with the aims and scope of the journal.
          5. Reviewer would recommend that the author reconsider the paper for a related or 
              alternative journal.
          6. It may be shortened and reconsidered in another form.
          7. The paper would be of interest to the readership of the journal.
          8. There is an abstract of the work undertaken as well as a conclusion.
          9. The paper is not incomplete.
        10. The submission is in Standard English to aid the understanding of readers from all
              backgrounds. Minor corrections in the language should be done while reviewing.
        11. The methodology is presented in the manuscript and any analysis provided is accurate
              and properly conducted.
        12. The significance and potential impact of a paper is high or low.
        13. All data, citations or references given by the author are relevant.

For recommendation:
Once youíve read the paper and have assessed its quality, you need to make a recommendation to the author regarding publication.

The key decisions are as follows:
Accept - if the paper is suitable for publication in its current form.
Minor revision - if the paper will be ready for publication after slight revisions. Please list the revisions you would recommend for the author.
Major revision - if the paper would benefit from substantial changes such as expanded data analysis, widening of the literature review, or rewriting sections of the text.
Reject - if the paper is not suitable for publication with this journal or if the revisions that would need to be undertaken are too fundamental for the submission to continue being considered in its current form.

Provide detailed comments:
Use the comment to the author as an opportunity to seek clarification on any unclear points and for further elaboration. Make suggestions as to how the author can improve clarity, succinctness, and the overall quality of presentation. Confirm whether you feel the subject of the paper is sufficiently interesting to justify its length; if you recommend shortening, it is useful to the author(s) if you can indicate specific areas where you think that shortening is required. It is helpful if you correct the English where the technical meaning is unclear.