Annex Publishers Peer Review Policy
Annex Publishers maintain the high standards of peer review while enhancing the efficiency and quality of the review process. All the articles published in Annex Publishers undergo full peer review. So that, the quality of the paper is maintained.
- Articles are reviewed by at least two suitably qualified experts
- All the publication decisions are made by the journal’s Editorial Board Members on the basis of the reviews provided
- Editorial Board members will provide their support in peer review process
Peer review of referred papers
Editorial Board Members of Annex Publishers will decide whether to accept, reject, or request revisions of referred papers based on the reviews and editorial insight of the supporting journals. In addition, Editors will have the option of seeking additional reviews when needed.
Peer review of novel submissions:
Articles submitted directly to Annex Publishers will be peer reviewed by at least two appropriately qualified experts in the field selected by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editorial Board Member will decide whether to accept, reject or request revisions based on the reviews and comments obtained.
Qualities of a Reviewer:
- Research excellence, generally as reflected by ability to obtain continued extramural peer-reviewed grant support for a research program
- Quality as a referee - breadth of knowledge, maturity of judgment
- Membership of the committee as a whole should satisfy
- The need to cover the range of research areas and relevant methodologies for which the committee is responsible
- Have recognized stature within the community
- Should be able to make the commitment in time required to interact with staff of the secretariat to facilitate the competition process
- Have the characteristics of leadership/diligence required of the position
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgement that they performed a review.