Reciprocity

Reviewing for journals is a professional activity that provides value for the profession as a whole, and should be encouraged. Scholars who submit manuscripts to Hexa Publishers  are normally expected to reciprocate by accepting an invitation to review for the Journal.

Single-Blind Peer-Review

MI follows a single-blind peer-review process, whereby authors do not know reviewers and vice versa. Peer reviewers are experts chosen by journal editors to provide written assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of written research, with the aim of improving the reporting of research and identifying the most appropriate and highest quality material for the journal.

Authors should respect the confidentiality of the review process and should not reveal themselves to Reviewers, and vice versa. For example, the manuscript should not include any self-revealing information that would identify the Author to a Reviewer.

Authors should not post their submitted manuscript (including working papers and prior drafts) on websites where it could be easily discovered by potential Reviewers.

If a Reviewer knows the identity of an Author or Co-Author, this would normally be grounds for refusal to review. Reviewers also have a responsibility to avoid writing, doing or saying anything that could identify them to an Author.

Authors should not nominate as Editor or Reviewer individuals whom they know have already read and provided comments on the manuscript or a previous version of the manuscript since such knowledge would automatically violate the double-blind review process.

Where articles appear in the Journal that were not double-blind reviewed, the standard of review should be clearly stated in the printed Acknowledgements accompanying the article. For example, an introductory article written by a Guest Editor for a Special Issue would normally be single-blind reviewed, and should be so identified when published.

Regular reviewers selected for the journal should be required to meet minimum standards regarding their background in original research, publication of articles, formal training, and previous critical appraisals of manuscripts.

Peer reviewers should be experts in the scientific topic addressed in the articles they review, and should be selected for their objectivity and scientific knowledge. Individuals who do not have such expertise cannot be reviewers, and there is no role for review of articles by individuals who have a major competing interest in the subject of the article (e.g. those working for a company whose product was tested, its competitors, those with ideological agendas, etc.).

Review Quality

Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for review, typically to two or three reviewers, but sometimes more if special advice is needed (for example on statistics or a particular technique where an expert in that particular technique is needed to evaluate it). Authors may request that certain Reviewers not be used, but this decision should be left to the Editor-in-Chief’s discretion.

The Editor should routinely assess all reviews for quality. In rare circumstances, an Editor may edit a review before sending it to an Author (for example, to remove a phrase that would identify the Reviewer) or not send the review to the Author if it is not constructive or appropriate.

Ratings of review quality and other performance characteristics should be periodically assessed by the Editor-in-Chief to assure optimal journal performance. These ratings should also contribute to decisions on reappointment to the Hexa Publishers  EAB and to ongoing review requests.  Individual performance data on Reviewers should be available to the Editors but otherwise kept confidential

Reviews will be expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive. The desired major elements of a high- quality review should be as follows:

1. The reviewer should have identified and commented on major strengths and weaknesses of the study design and methodology.
2. The reviewer should comment accurately and constructively upon the quality of the author’s interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations.
3. The reviewer should comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study.
4. The reviewer should comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of low standards of scientific conduct.
5. The reviewer should provide the author with useful suggestions for improvement of the manuscript.
6. The reviewer’s comments to the author should be constructive and professional.
7. The review should provide the editor the proper context and perspective to make a decision on acceptance (and/or revision) of the manuscript.

The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers’ advice, usually at least two, from among several possibilities:

• Accept As Is, with or without editorial revisions;
• Accept With Minor Revisions, with only minor changes to be made by the author;
• Return To Author(S) with major revision, author to revise & resubmit for another round of review;
• Reject Outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems, or if the work constitutes any unethical publishing behavior

Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action, but they should bear in mind that the other reviewers of a particular paper may have different technical expertise and/ or views, and the editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editors with the information on which a decision should be based. Setting out the arguments for and against publication is often more helpful to the editors than a direct recommendation one way or the other.

All reviewers are informed of the journal’s expectations, and editors should make an effort to educate them and suggest educational materials (such as, articles on how to peer review):

1. The editors should routinely assess all reviews for quality.
2. They may also edit reviews before sending them to authors, or simply not send them if they feel they are not constructive or appropriate.
3. Ratings of review quality and other performance characteristics of reviewers should be periodically assessed to assure optimal journal performance, and must contribute to decisions on reappointment or ongoing review requests (for journals that do not formally appoint reviewers).
4. Individual performance data must be kept confidential.
5. Performance measures such as review completion times should be used to assess changes in process that might improve journal performance.

What is expected of Reviewers?

The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication; reviewers must treat it as confidential. It should not be retained or copied. Also, reviewers must not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the Editor-in-Chief or Editors. Reviewers and editors must not make any personal or professional use of the data, arguments, or interpretations (other than those directly involved in its peer review) prior to publication unless they have the authors’ specific permission or are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the article.

If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should notify the Editor-in-Chief in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties unless officially notified by the journal that they may do so.

High-quality review is important, but equally important is that readers be able to readily determine which contents of the journal are peer-reviewed. The journal should describe which types of articles are peer reviewed, and by whom (i.e. only by EAB members, by outside expert reviewers, or both).

MI would publish annual audits of acceptance rates, publication intervals, percentage of submissions sent out for external peer review, and other performance data as applicable.

Timeliness

Reviewers should be prompt with their reviews. If a Reviewer cannot meet the deadline given, the Reviewer should contact the Editor-in-Chief as soon as possible to determine whether a longer time period or a new Reviewer should be chosen. Typically, the time to complete the first review is 3 weeks.

Decision Quality

The Editor-in-Chief has a responsibility to provide the Author with an explanation of the editorial decision on a manuscript. Editors should write high-quality editorial letters that integrate reviewers’ comments and offer additional suggestions to the Author. Editors should not send a decision letter, without explanation, attached to a set of reviewers ‘comments.

Submission by EAB Members

 All manuscripts submitted to Hexa Publishers undergo the rigid single- blind review process, where by Authors do not know Reviewers and vice versa. In addition, when making editorial decisions about peer- reviewed articles where an editor is an author or is acknowledged as a contributor, Hexa Publishers  has mechanism that ensures that the affected editors or staff members exclude themselves and are not involved in the publication decision.

When editors are presented with papers where their own interests may impair their ability to make an unbiased editorial decision, they should deputize decisions about the paper to a suitably qualified individual. In such cases, the Editor-in-Chief would ensure a suitable EAB member or the Editor-in-Chief would evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly and professionally, and personal biases would be avoided in their comments and judgments.

However, too many or frequent submissions of manuscripts from the Journal’s own EAB should be avoided due to ethical issues.