Criteria for Reviewing
Herbert Publications endeavor to uphold the publication standards by its reputation and integrity. Acting as a medium in transmitting the scientific contributions with rapid and thorough peer review system Herbert Publications strive to publish the best quality articles. Reviewer plays an essential role in this peer review process. Efforts of reviewers are the key for a fair and timely review process of all manuscripts and the publications highest quality articles. Their constructive comments and reports will help the Editor to take a decision on the manuscript. We greatly appreciate reviewers for their help in meeting these important objectives. For more information please visit Reviewer Guidelines.
All manuscripts submitted to Anesthesiology and Clinical Science will be peer reviewed. Each manuscript will be sent to the appropriate Editor who in turn will assign 3 reviewers (other members of the Editorial Board or outside experts) with the stipulation that the review must be submitted within 2 weeks. Once the reviews received from at least two reviewers, the Editor will make a decision, regardless of the third reviewer response. In the case of conflicting reviews, Editor will take a decision at their discretion. In general, if two of three reviews are favorable, the manuscript will be accepted. Any properly challenged decision will be taken by the Senior Editor and the Editor-in-Chief.
Herbert Publications follow single blinded peer-review process. In this process the author’s names and affiliations will be revealed to the reviewers, while authors are kept blinded from reviewer details. Authors can provide suggested reviewers and disclose any competing interests.
Initial decisions are held by Editors-in-Chief and submitted manuscripts will undergo unbiased preliminary assessment for the suitability to the scope of the journals. As an extension to the process, the assessed manuscripts are forwarded to at-least two expert reviewers in the field. This is intended to advance the correctness, clarity, and wholeness of manuscripts and help editors to decide whether the manuscript has to be published or not. Reports from at least two reviewers will be taken in to consideration for the decision to accept or reject a manuscript. Editors can give the updated guidance to the reviewers when required. Reviewers are given 3 weeks to send their fair and constructive reviews to Editor, and Editors-in-Chief are aimed to take the final decision within 6 weeks from the manuscript submission.
Herbert Publications aim for a timely publication process; reviewers are expected for their prompt response. The whole process is confidential and recommended to maintain the same until the publication process is completed. As the peer review process is very essential for validation of a quality article, the reviewers should consider below mentioned points while addressing the manuscript with comments and additional suggestions.
- Originality and significance of the study
- Validity of data and interpretation in accordance to the conclusions
- Evaluation of methods for their aptness and provided details
- Article’s potential to the subject area
- Organization of data, figures and tables
- Clarity in language and writing, adequate to understand easily
- Investigation of additional supplementary files if necessary
- Declaration of ethical approvals and competing interests
Herbert Publications is dedicated to publish and provide access to quality information and valuable contributions through Anesthesiology and Clinical Science to the respective field. It follows a specific format for each article type to the credit of weight in the information and maintains diverse appearance for reader's convenience. Therefore reviewers will be asked for reviewing different types of manuscripts. To find what type of articles published in Anesthesiology and Clinical Science, please visit Authors section on this Journal home page.
In course of attaining high standards and hold proficient peer review process, Herbert Publications offers its best services to authors saving their valuable time and efforts. We also aim to reduce the repetition of review process for a manuscript when it does not fall under the scope of Anesthesiology and Clinical Science. To speed up the publication process and minimize hinders from reviewers, our Manuscript Transfer Policy facilitates authors with a mutual transfer of the manuscript between Herbert Publications Journals. With respect to the editorial independence, when an editor of a journal decides that the submitted manuscript is not suitable to the scope of this journal, manuscript can be transferred to a more suitable journal as suggested by the editor with author's consent. The reviews will be passed on to the handling editor of the new journal and reviewers’ names will be revealed to the handling editor for editorial purpose unless reviewers do not wish to share their report with other Herbert Publications Journals.
Editorial policies are subjected to protect and strengthen the journals integrity and quality aiming reader's interest. In accordance to WAME definitions, Herbert Publications provides complete editorial freedom to the Editors-in-Chief with authority to determine journal's content and does not interfere with any sort of evaluation process of manuscripts. Editors or other staff does not implicate any editing to the reviews provided by reviewers. The comments will be forwarded to the authors as such unless the language is inappropriate and not suitable for professional communication. Reviews will be disclosed if any confidential information intended to the Editor. Reviewers should provide clear suggestions and honest corrections that reflect amiability. They must not use unfair language or offensive criticism.