Reviewer board

Authors could suggest at least 3 reviewers to review the manuscripts submitted to Techno-SRJ journal. 

The reviewers can be both local and international, having expertise related to the research in the manuscript. 

Techno-SRJ has the right to assign other relevant reviewers besides the suggestions from authors.


Ethic for Reviewers :
Reviewers should give clear and constructive comments on each manuscript and make judgement based on the quality of research reported, giving fair evaluation.

Reviewers should provide explanation and sometime supporting reference to any critical comments that would have for each manuscript.

These kinds of comments will help authors to understand the basis and judgement weight.


Fundamental guidelines that peer reviewers should follow:
1. Peer reviewers must review manuscripts only within their expertise, maintain confidentiality, and refrain from using review information for personal gain or to harm others.

2. They should disclose any potential conflicts of interest, remain impartial regardless of authors' characteristics, and provide constructive feedback without hostility or personal attacks.

3. Reviewers are obligated to fulfill their reviewing responsibilities promptly and fairly, provide accurate information about their expertise, and avoid impersonation during the review process, which is considered serious misconduct.


Peer reviewers' responsibilities during the review process :
1. Peer reviewers should respond promptly to review requests, declaring any limitations in expertise and ensuring they can meet agreed-upon deadlines.

2. They must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and adhere to journal policies regarding conflicts, including relationships with authors and previous involvement with the manuscript.

3. Reviewers should provide unbiased assessments, decline reviews if unable to be impartial, and avoid conflicts arising from personal preferences or objections to the journal's review policies.


During review :
1. Reviewers should promptly notify the journal of any newly discovered conflicts of interest or factors that may affect their ability to provide an unbiased review.

2. They must refrain from accessing the manuscript until instructed by the journal, thoroughly read all provided materials, and promptly communicate any uncertainties or missing information to the journal.

3. Reviewers should maintain confidentiality, promptly inform the journal of any inability to meet review deadlines, report any irregularities or ethical concerns, ensure impartiality in their assessment, and refrain from direct communication with authors without journal permission.


Report from reviewer :
1. Reviewers should recognize their role as subject experts and provide honest, fair assessments of the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses, adhering to the editor's expectations.

2. They must clarify if they are asked to focus on specific parts of the manuscript, follow journal instructions for feedback organization, and offer constructive criticism to help authors improve their work.

3. Reviewers should avoid personal attacks, provide evidence for criticisms, respect authors' writing styles, consider language sensitivities, and ensure consistency between their comments to the editor and feedback for authors, while refraining from suggesting citations for personal gain.


Post reviewer expectation :
1. Maintain confidentiality of manuscript details and reviews.

2. Respond promptly to journal inquiries and provide necessary information related to reviews.

3. Update the journal about any relevant information that may affect original feedback, read other reviewers' feedback if available, and accommodate requests to review revisions or resubmissions.