International Science Publication LLC

International Science Publications (ISP)

The international Science Publications (ISP) is officially registered in United States of America with the objective to publish research findings in the international scientific journals related to the Basic, translational and clinical immunology, Cell Biology, Physiology, Chemistry, Zoology, Public health including infectious diseases, Agricultural Sciences including Botanical research advancement.

Publication Office: 26159 Chardon Road, Richmond Heights, OH 44143

Reviewer Guidelines

Editor Guidelines

ISP’ peer review process is unique and quality-focused. Read on for a guide for reviewers on what to expect of our peer review process.

Our peer review process?

ISP’ operates a single-blind model during the review process. This means the reviewers know who the authors are in order to offer a full assessment within the context of their research and to ensure they can avoid any potential competing interests in accepting a review invitation.

 

We believe in transparency and ensuring no bias during the peer review process. This is why we disclose the name of all endorsing reviewers upon publication, for every article we publish.

Independent review phase

Once a reviewer accepts the invitation to review, they are sent an email with a link to the online review forum. In the review forum, they can access and review the manuscript and supporting documents. During this first review phase the reviewers assess the paper independently from each other and the authors.

 

After submitting the review report, a reviewer will also submit their recommendation to the editor. At this stage they are able to directly endorse the manuscript and finalize their review process, should the manuscript meet our acceptance criteria.

 

Once all reviewers have submitted their review report, the handling editor is responsible for activating the next phase of the process: the interactive review. Even if the review reports are unfavorable to the authors, the collaborative review forum is activated to allow authors the opportunity of a rebuttal.

Instructions for Reviewers

Reviewers are the crucial facilitator between the author and the handling editor. From a position of expertise, reviewers guide and enable fellow researchers to get their work out into the world, in the best condition it can be.

 

To support our reviewers, we have put together some tips and lists of things to consider when getting ready to review, and in writing a fair and constructive review.

Before accepting the invitation

When you receive an invitation to review, it is important to consider the following points before accepting.

Is the manuscript within my expertise?

Think about whether the manuscript is suitably within your area of expertise. If not, please decline the invite, and consider helping us by suggesting alternative relevant experts.

Do I have the time?

We strive to keep our peer review process efficient and as such reviewers are requested to complete their reports within 7 days after they accept the invite. You should let the editorial office know if you aren’t able to provide a review but may be able to participate at another time.

Do I have a conflict of interest?

Once the invitation is accepted, as a reviewer you will be asked to complete a short questionnaire regarding conflicts of interest to establish any relationship with the author(s) of the manuscript which may make it inappropriate for you to review. Conflicts of interest are assessed on a case by case basis and may not be disqualifying, so please disclose all answers in full. Further details on this are available here.

Respond to the invitation

We ask reviewers to respond to the review invitation as soon as they can. You are of course free to decline to review if you feel that you lack the time or expertise, and we always appreciate recommendations for alternative reviewers.

 

If a reviewer realizes that 7 days will be insufficient to complete their review, or if there will be a delay to the deadline after the invitation has been accepted, they can contact the editorial office. We will be happy to assist.

Don't be vague or too brief

Authors find precise and detailed feedback extremely helpful, and this tends to result in a timely and smoother review process. Whereas a brief report will often lead to additional questions from authors. Make sure recommendations and decisions are explained clearly. You should make good use of the detailed questionnaire provided in the collaborative review platform to provide a clear assessment.

Don't leave out key points in your initial report

The initial report should be thorough and provide all the necessary feedback upfront. While it is possible that further revisions to the paper will bring up new questions, be sure to include your key points in your initial report. Ensure you conclude your report with a clear recommendation for the handling editor. You are the expert and your guidance is highly valued.

Don't drop out of the peer review

To ensure an efficient process for all involved, please try to submit your responses on time. If you need to request an extension or to withdraw from the review process you can do this directly in the review forum at any time, or contact the editorial office for support. Try to place yourself in the authors’ shoes, as they anxiously await feedback on their submissions.

Keep in touch

Encountering any issues during review or have any concerns with the manuscript? Need assistance using our review platform? Need to request an extension to submit your review? For these or any other inquiries or updates, please contact the Editor-in-chief.