EMID CONFERENCES

The Peer Review Process

EMID Conferences  follow a double blind  peer review process in order to maintain high ethical standards and scientific temperament of a research as well as reputation of the  scholarly publishing All manuscripts  submit to EMID Conferences follow a double-blind peer review process .To make the process credible and transparent , EMID Conferences has fixed responsibilities of the people involved in the process.

The Chief Co-Editor(s)-in-Chief of a   Conference is the only person responsible for the initial review of a submission to verify that a manuscript  meets the  aims, and scope and benchmarks of  Conference .Also Chief Co-editor (s) ensure that authors’ names and affiliations are removed from the paper prior to assigning it for  peer review. All individuals wo join or are invited to join an editorial advisory board  or review board must submit a copy of their Curriculum Vitae/Resume for review. Further , each selected member of the board(s) must give  a written  consent by email or letter for  accepting the nomination and appointment to the board (s).

All Co-Editor(s)-in-Chief of must follow  a transparent and objective process (preferably an  online submission system) to assign  peer reviewers to  each manuscript . Similarly , all reviews must be submitted by the reviewers through the online system. Thus the process ensures a clear trail of the steps in the event a question arises surrounding the review process. The Chief co-editor(s) checks the completeness  and  the reviewer’s evaluation form when providing an accepted paper.

Double Blind Review process

EMID Conferences and publishers follows a Double-Blind Review process under the Peer Review system. In this process, both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous to each other.

Given below are our must Norms 

A confidential review process that is not shared between the reviewer and the author.

To assure uniformity, impartiality and constraint on the part of the reviewer we follow double-blind review process where not only author’s identity is hidden from the reviewers but also two reviewers independently review a paper.

The process is effectively managed  within a restricted time period

A robust process including author(s)’ declaration of promise of originality, authenticity and non-plagiarism.

A sample letter for Reviewer Responsibilities and Expectations

Co-Editor(s)-in-Chief Responsibilities:

 

Inviting Editorial board members and Reviewers board members for joining EMID Conferences following a due process selection of the board members.

Organising and maintaining an Editorial Board (minimum of 8+ Associate Editors and 20+ Editorial Review Board Members representing researchers from academic and professional institutions).

Giving call for research Conference manuscripts and soliciting good quality research manuscript submissions for the Conference.

Using a minimum of two Editorial Review Board Members for successful completion of a double-blind peer review of each manuscript via submission system.

Collecting and organising final materials for each issue, ensuring that every manuscript submission adheres to EMID Conferences’ formatting and submission guidelines.

Publishing the completed issues on a semi-annual basis.

Reviewer Responsibilities and Expectations:

  • All double-blind peer reviews should be conducted through our editorial management system by the assigned due date.
  • Reviewers are core to quality systems in the research publication. The reviewer (s) perform a very significant and value adding role that ensures, that each manuscript published is with integrity & accuracy and of higher quality. Being a reviewer is also a respected position and enhances reviewer’s   academic career progression. Reviewers also undertake a professional service for their colleagues to improve the quality of their work. Reviewers can also aid EMID Conferences by spreading word pf mouth thus reaching potential authors and subscribers.
  • If reviewer(s) has any conflict of interest or are familiar with the identity of the author of the submitted work, they are expected to notify the Co-Editor(s)-in-Chief as soon as possible.
  • As a reviewer, your feedback is very valuable to the advancement of your peers’ research.
  • The reviewers are requested to carefully read each manuscript, provide a rigorous, constructive and honest feedback supported with relevant citations to help authors develop a more rigorous research work.
  • Reviewers must provide criteria specific and their overall assessment of the submitted work.
  • The reviewers are requested to carefully read each manuscript, provide a rigorous, constructive and honest feedback supported with relevant citations to help authors develop a more rigorous research work. Reviewers must provide criteria specific and their overall assessment of the submitted work. The feedback should be evidenced with mentioning specific page numbers and paras/sections   of the manuscript. In addition, provide relevant citations to the authors to improve their work. The reviewer should also assess the tables, figures, and diagrams.
  • The review must stretch beyond the typos, use of punctuation, spelling, and language in the submitted articles. Authors are expected to copy edit, proofread manuscript, as the reviewers are not s expected to do the same. .
  • The peer review evaluation criteria include an analysis of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses in different sections, and provided, specific, clear, constructive actionable feedback on how to make the manuscript more complete, relevant, and readable, as well as specific questions for the authors to address.
  • Reviewers must avoid making any unethical, disrespectful, derogatory and unprofessional comments. if a manuscript appears not suitable for publications, even then  reviewers should  provide extensive feedback of reasons  why the paper is not acceptable and constructive directions for future submissions.
  • Each review board member is evaluated yearly. The criteria for reviewing the reviewer include quality, completeness, timeliness, rigorousness    of each review performed during that period Poor performance will lead to eventual removal from the board if the performance continues to decline.

Time targets for the double-blind peer review process

 The entire double review process can typically take anywhere from 6 to 8 weeks.  In case of delays or contradictory feedback from the reviewer(s), a third reviewer will be asked for the feedback.  If necessary, revised manuscripts may be returned to the initial reviewers for re-evaluation. The Co-Editor(s)-in-Chief may require more than one revision of a manuscript.

Double-Blind Peer Review criteria

Once an article manuscript is deemed suitable by the Co-editor(s)-in-Chief to enter the double-blind peer review process, it will be anonymised and assigned to at least two Editorial Review Board Members as Reviewers. Each reviewer is assigned a manuscript based on the expertise of the reviewer and their workload.

Reviewers must follow a standard research quality evaluation criterion and provide anonymous and constructive feedback and to the author and may also provide confidential feedback to the Editor(s)-in-Chief.

Tips for improving style of SMART review feedback:

The feedback should be evidenced with mentioning specific page numbers; and paras/sections   of the manuscript. in addition, provide relevant citations to the authors to improve their  work. The reviewer should also assess the tables, figures, and diagrams.The review must stretch beyond the typos, use of punctuation, spelling, and language in the submitted articles. Authors are expected to copy edit, proofread manuscript, as the reviewers are not s expected to do the same.

Reviewers evaluate a manuscript for:

While conducting your review, consider the following questions:

  • Relevance of the manuscript to the aims and scope of the Conference.  Is the manuscript in congruence with the aims and the scope of the Conference?
  • Originality, uniqueness and significance of contribution. Interesting to research community, profession, industry and practitioners. How useful is the material to the field of the research?
  • International relevance of the research. How relevant and contemporary is the research internationally?
  • The clear background, research problem and objectives. Has the manuscript set a clear background and given relational for the choice of research topic?
  • Coverage of existing literature. Has the literature review critically analysed, synthesised and evaluated relevant information and arguments in support of the manuscript?
  • Suitability of research methodology, its analysis, reliability, validity, completeness, comprehension and justifications. Does the article explain the choice of research methodology justifies it with a detailed explanation of research methods and procedures?
  • Depth of analysis of the primary/secondary data / information under results and findings section along with discussion of the results and scope of the future research. Does the manuscript have undertaken a critical analysis of the data following appropriate tools of data analysis followed by a critical discussion and evaluations of the results?
  • Clear, concise, and coherent writing. Does the manuscript clearly state the issues being addressed and follows a coherence structure and clear professional writing and citations?
  • Organizational structure. Is the manuscript clearly organized in a logical fashion? Are the author’s conclusions supported by the research
  • Overall quality and fit for purpose : Are the manuscript overall fit with the quality standards of a peer reviewed Conference and of internal standards
  • Accept/ reject or revision of the manuscript: The reviewer advises for Acceptance/ rejection or revision of the manuscript. 

Becoming a Reviewer for EMID Conferences

 As a reviewer you will have the opportunity to evaluate the latest research in your area of expertise, while expanding your knowledge in the field as well as your professional profile. You will be able to cite your work as a reviewer as part of your professional and academic requirements for various professional and research   organizations.  We always welcome to researcher to be added to our reviewer database, please apply now.

Submission and Publications stages:

Stage 1:- Call for Submission: The Co-Editors invite manuscript for the Conference or authors submit proposals/ manuscript to the EMID Conferences.

Stage 2:-Authors Submission: The author (s) submit Conference relevant, paper/ proposal/ manuscript in the required template and the format via online submission system.

Submission of the research Proposal for consideration

 

Matching of the Proposal to conference theme.
Completeness of  Proposal Abstract.
The Attractiveness of the research.
Proposal / Abstracts should contain following:
         Relevant and complete title (ideally up to 15 words)
         Full Names, Affiliations, and Emails of author(s)
         Research Proposal  Abstract (ideally 150-300 words) indicating: Research                      Objectives, Methodology, Findings, Research Outcomes, and Future Scope
          3 to 5 Keywords.

 

 Stage 3:-Initial Assessment of the Manuscript by Editorial Board.

Each new manuscript submitted through   EMID online submission system and screened by the Co-Editor(s)-in-Chief for suitability with reference to aim and scope. The manuscripts will be accepted and rejected as suitable and relevant to the EMID Conference. Only the manuscripts that are shortlisted by the Co-Editor(s)-in-Chief are then assigned to the double-blind peer review process. Authors of manuscripts that are rejected during the initial assessment stage will be promptly notified.

 Stage 4:-Double-Blind Peer Review

Once an article manuscript is deemed suitable by the Co-editor(s)-in-Chief to enter the double-blind peer review process, it will be anonymised and assigned to at least two Editorial Review Board Members as Reviewers.

Each reviewer is assigned a manuscript based on the expertise of the reviewer and their workload. Reviewers must follow a standard research quality evaluation criteria and provide anonymous and constructive feedback and to the author and may also provide confidential feedback to the Editor(s)-in-Chief.

Stage 5:-Reviewers evaluate a manuscript for and submit feedback to Editorial Board

While conducting your review, consider the following questions:

  • Relevance of the manuscript to the aims and scope of the Conference.  Is the manuscript in congruence with the aims and the scope of the Conference?
  • Originality, uniqueness and significance of contribution. Interesting to research community, profession, industry and practitioners. How useful is the material to the field of the research?
  • International relevance of the research. How relevant and contemporary is the research internationally?
  • The clear background, research problem and objectives. Has the manuscript set a clear background and given relational for the choice of research topic?
  • Coverage of existing literature. Has the literature review critically analysed, synthesised and evaluated relevant information and arguments in support of the manuscript?
  • Suitability of research methodology, its analysis, reliability, validity, completeness, comprehension and justifications. Does the article explain the choice of research methodology justifies it with a detailed explanation of research methods and procedures?
  • Depth of analysis of the primary/secondary data / information under results and findings section along with discussion of the results and scope of the future research. Does the manuscript have undertaken a critical analysis of the data following appropriate tools of data analysis followed by a critical discussion and evaluations of the results?
  • Clear, concise, and coherent writing. Does the manuscript clearly state the issues being addressed and follows a coherence structure and clear professional writing and citations?
  • Organizational structure. Is the manuscript clearly organized in a logical fashion? Are the author’s conclusions supported by the research
  • Overall quality and fit for purpose : Are the manuscript overall fit with the quality standards of a peer reviewed Conference and of internal standards
  • Accept/ reject or revision of the manuscript: The reviewer advises for Acceptance/ rejection or revision of the manuscript. 

Stage 6:- Editorial Board will evaluate the reviewer’s feedback:

Post Peer reviews, the Co-Editor(s)-in-Chief will evaluates the reviewers feedback and the of the manuscript itself. After this the Co- Editor(s)-in-Chief will determine whether the manuscript is accepted, requires revision, or is rejected.

 Stage 7:-The Co-Editor(s)-in-Chief will make the reviewers’ feedback available to the author(s). From time to time the manuscript and reviewers feedback are shared with all of reviewers teams in order to standardise and continually to improve the quality of the reviewing process.

Stage 8:- Acceptation, acceptance with revision or rejection of Manuscript post peer review 

If the manuscript is accepted or deemed fit for a revision, then the author(s) will be provided with complete information for required revision, improvements and the formatting guidelines for final submission. 

Stage 9:- Authors submit revised and improved manuscript 

Stage 10:- Editorial Board will evaluate the 

Each revised submitted manuscript will be sent one Editor / reviewer for evaluation and approval. And then to the Co-Editor(s)-in-Chief before a final decision is reached. If the manuscript is rejected, then the process ends and the Co-Editor(s)-in-Chief inform to the authors.

Stage 11:- Final proofreading, Editing and Publication of the manuscript to EMID Conferences

Once the manuscript reaches final stage of publication, the authors and editors will have the opportunity to proof their manuscript prior to being sent to online publication.

 

Close Menu