You are on page 1of 2

Peer Review / Responsibility for the Reviewers

As an editor or a reviewer you are requested to find out about the originality of the manuscript
you are urged to review. Therefore, it is recommended that you also see the Author Guidelines
and Polices page to see which points authors should take into consideration prior to submission
of their full papers for the publication.
Although reviewed articles are treated confidentially, reviewers judgments should be objective.
Reviewers should have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the
research funders, and reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited.
Review Guidelines
ICH2016 highly appreciates their kind support by agreeing to review an article for our
conference. Before they consent to evaluate any paper, the reviewers are requested to consider a
number of points. First, if the paper is not in your area of research interest and expertise, please
inform the editor and feel free to refuse to review it. Second, if you have no free time to evaluate
the paper before the deadline, kindly inform the editor. Third, in case of any conflicts of interest,
the reviewers acknowledgement can be very useful in our final decision. Therefore, if by any
chance you have read the paper before or happen to know the authors, please inform the editor
about this.
Kindly make sure you review the paper confidentially. Please avoid contacting the authors. In
addition, should you feel the need to ask a third party for their comments, please make sure to
inform the managing editor in advance.
Before they are sent to reviewers, all ICH2016 papers are previewed by our editor(s)-in-chief.
However, if you doubt the originality of any part(s) of the work you are reviewing, please inform
the editor. In addition, if you suspect the accuracy or truth of any part(s) of the work under
review, make sure to inform the editor about it.
ICH2016 reviewers are requested to evaluate the articles based on a number of evaluative criteria
available in the review form including the clarity, quality, thoroughness, relevance, significance,
and soundness of the works. The reviewers score each of these criteria based on the quality of the
work. Reviewers may leave comments in the manuscript itself and in the review form. These
comments are very valuable for the professional development of any authors and will
unquestionably help them improve their work.
Reviewers may also add their comments in the second section of the Review Form. Having
reviewed the paper, the reviewer is requested to make any of the following decisions:

Accept as it is

Accept with some minor or major corrections

Revise and resubmit

Reject

This decision should be based on the merits and demerits of the work under review.
ICH2016 papers have to be proofread before they are published, and the reviewers are by no
means obliged to correct or mark language errors or typos. However, if the reviewers detect such
cases, they are most welcome to highlight them.
ICH2016 corresponds with its reviewers only through email; therefore, you are requested to
email your report and in-text comments (if any) to the ICH2016 managing editor.
Reviewing is undoubtedly an invaluable and noble act that cannot be compensated by any
means. However, ICH2016is organized by Postgraduate Students of the School of Humanities
and we only hope that one day we could return this favor.
ICH2016 appreciates your time, support, and consideration.