Conscientia Beam publishes academic journals covering the social sciences; medical sciences; biological sciences; agricultural sciences; physical sciences; engineering; arts and education and legal studies. Conscientia Beam welcomes you to join our reviewing team.
Your contribution in the peer-review process is completely vital for the success and reputation of the journal. The reviewers and editors determine the quality and significance of submitted manuscripts. The reviewers’ names will be listed in the printed journal and on the journal’s webpage.
Reviewer positions are open to Ph.D. degree holders and students who can apply by completing this online form and emailing it to email@example.com
Conscientia Beam aims to maintain the publication standards. Conscientia Beam endeavors to publish the bst quality research and contribute further to the future of scientific progress, following COPE guidelines to maintain excellent publication standards through its rigorous peer review process.
The reviewer is a renowned person with vast subject knowledge and plays an vital role in the peer review process confirming the integrity of all the published material. The whole process depends on the trust and involvement of the participating reviewers. The efforts of reviewers are key to the objectives of a fair and timely review process for all of our manuscripts and publication of only the highest quality papers. All the participating peer reviewers should follow our guidelines and ethics. Their constructive comments and reports will help the Editor to decide on manuscripts. We greatly appreciate reviewers for their help in meeting these important objectives.
Peer review process
All the journals of Conscientia Beam employ a double blinded peer review process. In this process the author's names and affiliations will not be revealed to the reviewers, while the authors are kept blinded from reviewer details. After the Editorial Review process, the handling Editor will solicit at least two expert reviewers in the field with the title and an abstract of the manuscript to take up the peer review process. Reviewers are expected to give a prompt response when approached. This is intended to advance the correctness, clarity, and wholeness of manuscripts and helps editors to decide whether the manuscript can be published or not. Reviewers should provide reviews with clear suggestions and honest corrections to the Editor who will again forward the review reports as such to the author.
Responsibilities of reviewers
- Reviewers should respect confidentiality and not disclose information until the manuscript is published.
- Reviewers should protect individual data and not use the information for their own benefit or share it with any other individual or organization.
- Reviewers should agree to review the manuscript only if they have expertise in the subject area adequate for accurate assessment and give a constructive report.
- Reviewers should ensure that all authors have an equal opportunity to publish and that their origin, nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, gender or political beliefs do not influence the peer review process.
- Reviewers should ensure that reviews are based on relevancy, integrity, scientific strength, potential interest, completeness, clarity and ethics in the manuscript.
- Reviewers should declare any potential conflict of interests and take assistance from the Editor regarding any uncertain conflicts.
- Reviewers should declare if they are involved in the submitted work in any manner and decline to review the manuscript.
- Reviewers should notify the Editor immediately if they found that any partial or whole information in the manuscript is plagiarized or infringed.
- Reviewers should notify the Editor if they have any concerns about the study, ethical aspects or misconduct in the manuscript.
- Reviewers should not attempt to contact the authors regarding the manuscript without permission from the Editor.
Instructions on being asked to review a manuscript
- Please acknowledge promptly whether you can serve as a reviewer or not.
- Decline if you have no subject expertise to take on the review process.
- Complete and submit your review report within two weeks.
- Ensure proficient peer review process and submit reviews within the time-frame and inform the Editor if you cannot do so.
- Do not delay the review process intentionally.
- Understand that the Editor will decide on the manuscript if at least two reports are received within the time frame regardless of the third reviewer’s report.
- If the first two received reviews are contrasting, then the Editor will have to wait for the third reviewer's report to take a decision.
- Contact the Editor for any additional documents.
- Not edit any information in the manuscript content.
- Be confident and provide sound, constructive and unbiased reviews.
- Remember to acknowledge the good information in the manuscript.
- Keep reviews objective and without any personal accusations.
- Indicate and direct any confidential comments only to the Editor.
- Avoid using unfair language or offensive criticism which is inappropriate for professional communication.
- Keep a copy of the review documents for your use in case a revision is submitted by the authors.
- Respond promptly with required information whenever the Editor contacts you post the review process regarding the reviewed manuscript.