Sanskriti: Journal of Humanities

Peer reviewers should:

· only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner

· respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal

· not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others

· declare all potential conflicting of interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest

· not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations

· be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments

· acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner

· provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise

· recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct

Kindly read the complete Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers is available at COPE’s website http://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf

Manuscript Evaluation Form

Manuscript Title:

Manuscript Rating: (Please, rate the article by putting tick mark: 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Good, 4 =Very good, 5 = Excellent)

No.	Criteria	N/A	1	2	3	4	5
1	Does the title reflect central research question and underlying propositions?
2	Is the purpose of the research clearly stated in the abstract and introduction?
3	Is the significance of the research well explained at the outset?
4	Does the paper make a clear contribution to the area of research?
5	Is the review of previous literature adequate to justify hypothesis?
6	Has a sound theoretical foundation been established?
7	Is the material used in the paper original or used differently?
8	Is there a logical flow of argument?
9	Is the paper well presented?
10	Are the conclusions relevant to the purpose of the research and derived from the material presented in the paper?
11	Does the paper include appropriate references and citations?