s

About Academy  |  About IRBAS  |    Contact Us                                                                                                                                  ISSN (Online) : 2308-7056

International Review of Basic
and Applied Sciences (IRBAS)

Home     Editorial Board     Current Issue     Archive     Indexing      Call for papers     Authors Guideline      Manuscript Submission

News & Events

Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Recruitment of Reviewers. Reviewers name and affiliation will be listed on the journals webpage.
  
Monday, August 14, 2017
IRBAS Volume 5, Issue 8 has been published.
  
Monday, August 14, 2017
IRBAS Volume 5 Issue 9 will publish in October 2017.
  

IRBAS Citation Report

  All Since 2017
 Citation  27 09
 h-index 03 01
 i10-index 00 00

Hit Counter

Total 241461
Today's 91
Yesterday's 3132

 Country Wise Counter

Academy Publication Ethics


Double Blind Peer Review

Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In Academy of IRMBR double blind peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. In parallel with these 'common experience' definitions based on the study of peer review as a pre-constructed process, there are a few scientific understandings of peer review that do not look at peer review as pre-constructed. Academy of IRMBR perceived that journal peer review can be understood as reciprocal accountability of judgments among peers. Academy of IRMBR impose that journal peer review could be understood as a social form of boundary judgment - determining what can be considered as scientific (or not) set against an overarching knowledge system, and following predecessor forms of inquisition and censorship.

Procedure

In the case of proposed publications, an editor sends advance copies of an author's work or ideas to researchers or scholars who are experts in the field (known as "referees" or "reviewers"), nowadays normally by e-mail or through a web-based manuscript processing system. Usually, Academy of IRMBR assigns three referees for a given article.

These referees each return an evaluation of the work to the editor, noting weaknesses or problems along with suggestions for improvement. Typically, most of the referees' comments are eventually seen by the author; scientific journals observe this convention universally. The editor, usually familiar with the field of the manuscript (although typically not in as much depth as the referees, who are specialists), then evaluates the referees' comments, her or his own opinion of the manuscript, and the context of the scope of the journal or level of the book and readership, before passing a decision back to the author(s), usually with the referees' comments.

Referees' evaluations usually include an explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript or proposal, often chosen from options provided by the journal or funding agency. Most recommendations are along the lines of the following:

To unconditionally accept the manuscript or the proposal,

To accept it in the event that its authors improve it in certain ways,

To reject it, but encourage revision and invite resubmission,

To reject it outright.

For the articles acceptance at Academy of IRMBR, it is important that two out of three reviewers should accept the paper or should have positive comments  about articles. In situations where multiple referees disagree substantially about the quality of a work, there are a number of strategies for reaching a decision. When an editor receives very positive and very negative reviews for the same manuscript, the editor will often solicit one or more additional reviews as a tie-breaker. As another strategy in the case of ties, editors may invite authors to reply to a referee's criticisms and permit a compelling rebuttal to break the tie. If an editor does not feel confident to weigh the persuasiveness of a rebuttal, the editor may solicit a response from the referee who made the original criticism. An editor may convey communications back and forth between authors and a referee, in effect allowing them to debate a point. Even in these cases, however, editors do not allow multiple referees to confer with each other, though each reviewer may often see earlier comments submitted by other reviewers. The goal of the process is explicitly not to reach consensus or to persuade anyone to change their opinions, but instead to provide material for an informed editorial decision. Traditionally, reviewers would often remain anonymous to the authors in Academy of IRMBR.

Copyright © www.academyirmbr.com : 2012-17. All Rights Reserved.