Peer Review Process
Manuscripts submitted by the authors are subjected to a preliminary screening based on appropriateness of the theme and quality of the content of the manuscript. Manuscripts which are not according to the author guidelines will be returned to the author without processing further.
Those manuscripts that are cleared the initial screening then undergo a double-blind peer review process. Two reviewers in the same or related field are assigned by Editor in Chief in consultation with Coordinating Editor to carry out the review based on the evaluation criteria. Based on the evaluation report of the reviewers, the Editor in Chief and the editorial team then make a final decision for acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.
Peer review process normally takes from 12 weeks to 16 weeks. However, in some cases it may take lesser than 12 weeks or more than 16 weeks. It is assured that the whole process will not take more than 20 weeks.
If the manuscript is accepted with reviewers’ comments, the manuscript will be sent to the author with comments and the author will be given a maximum period of 4 weeks to pen the suggested improvements and resend to the Coordinating Editor. Authors are kindly requested therefore, to follow the guidelines for the authors when submitting the manuscript initially and finally, the improved manuscript before the deadlines as mentioned above.
Instructions to peer reviewers
JAS- SL relies on the time and expertise of academic reviewers to maintain its high editorial standards. JAS – SL Editorial Board requests the peer reviewers to ensure the following requirements in a submitted manuscript:
- Research or review paper is well designed and executed.
- Presentation of methods will permit replication.
- Data are unambiguous and properly analyzed.
- Conclusions are supported by data.
- New knowledge is added to the field of study
Peer reviewers also have important responsibilities towards authors, editors, and readers. Please consider them carefully.
Reviewers who realize that their expertise in the subject of the article is limited have a responsibility to make their degree of competence clear to the Editor. Although reviewers need not be experts in every aspect of the content, the assignment should be accepted only if they have adequate expertise to provide an authoritative assessment.
Impartiality and Integrity
Reviewer comments and conclusions should be based on an objective and impartial consideration of the facts, exclusive of being bias personally or professionally. All comments by reviewers should be based solely on the paper’s scientific merit, originality, and quality of writing as well as on its relevance to Scope of the JAS – Sri Lanka.
Timeliness and Responsiveness
Reviewers are responsible for acting promptly, adhering to the instructions for completing a review, and completing the review within the requested time frame. These guidelines are adapted from the Council of Science Editors White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/entire_whitepaper.pdf
- Provide written, unbiased feedback on the scholarly merits and scientific value of the work, together with rationale for your opinion.
- Provide your review immediately within 14 days. If you cannot do so please contact Coordinating Editor of JAS-SL.
- Indicate if the writing is clear, concise, and relevant. Rate the work’s composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to readers.
- Avoid personal comments or criticism.
- Refrain from direct author contact.
- Maintain the confidentiality of the review process by not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper at all.
- Alert the Editor to any potential personal or financial conflict of interest you may have and decline to review when a possibility of a conflict exists.
- Determine scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work and suggest ways to improve it.
- Avoid comments to authors directly on acceptance or rejection of the paper; include such remarks as confidential comments for editors.
- Note any ethical concerns, such as substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published article or any manuscript concurrently submitted elsewhere.
- Ensure that published articles meet standards of the JAS-SL.
- Protect readers from incorrect or flawed research or studies that cannot be validated by others.
- Be alert to any failure to cite relevant work by other scientists.
- Strictly follow the reviewer’s report form given by the Coordinating Editor.
- Open Submissions
- Peer Reviewed
- Open Submissions
- Peer Reviewed