The Eligibility for Advisory Editor

ISRDO is committed to continue to focus on our goal. We will do our best to develop and enhance innovative ideas through research papers that would make this journal much more important for science and technology. It will contribute to generate new opportunities in the industry and society.

ISRDO welcomes you to apply for a place in the Editorial board or in a Reviewer Panel, so that we could grow and could share the purest of knowledge.

Invitation to be ISRDO Editorial Board Member:

We cordially invite you to apply for a place in the International Scientific Research and Development Organization (ISRDO) Editorial Board.

Eligibility for becoming a member of Editorial Board:

• Minimum Qualification (PhD/ Master's degree.)
• Should have at least 5/7 years of experience in a specific area of science after obtaining a PhD/Master's degree.
• At least 8 international research papers have been published in reputed publications/journals.
• Attended at least 3 to 6 seminars/workshops/conferences
• At least 2 to 3 memberships with any organization
• At least 2 to 3 achievement's/award/recognition

Invitation to Join Advisory Editor

If you are interested in reviewing articles for one or more of our journals, please register your contact details, including your ORCID identifier, LinkedIn Profile, institutional affiliation, a short CV, and 5-6 keywords in line with your expertise at the following page Login Page .

ISRDO welcomes you to apply for a place in the Editorial board or in a Reviewer Panel, so that we could grow and could share the purest of knowledge.                                 

Submission Guidelines:

• Before Submission, check Basic Eligibility Criteria. 
  
• Follow the Resume Template : Click here
• To successfully submit your application, complete the following steps : Click here

If you have any questions, please contact our team : [email protected]

Benefits of ISRDO Advisory Editor

Peer review is an essential part in the publication process, ensuring that ISRDO maintains high quality standards for its published papers. Reviewing is often an unseen and unrewarded task. We are striving to recognize the efforts of reviewers.

When reviewing for ISRDO journals you:

• Receive a discount entitling you to a reduction in the Article Processing Fee (APC) of a future submission to any ISRDO journal. Discount applied online upon submission or any time prior to final acceptance.
• Receive a personalized appointment letter and Board member certificate.
• Are included in the journal’s annual acknowledgment of reviewers.
• Are considered for the journal’s outstanding reviewer award.
• Being a reviewer opens doors to incredible opportunities. Review services will enhance your knowledge of professional standards; and quickly earn the respect of your peers.
• The names of all the reviewers will be displayed in Editorial Board on respective journals’ webpages. With the links of names, a comprehensive profile of the reviewer will be displayed on the website.

Guidelines for Advisory Editor

The ISRDO strives hard towards the spread of scientific knowledge, and the credibility of the published article completely depends upon effective peer reviewing process. Reviewing of manuscript is an important part in the process of publication. Reviewers are asked to make an evaluation and provide recommendations to ensure the scientific quality of the manuscript is on par with our standards. Reviewers are not expected to rewrite a paper. The reviewers are requested to provide authentic, positive review comments and rating for the respective manuscript. A reviewer has to review the articles received from the Editorial Office or the Editor within the specifically mentioned timeline. The initial term is for 2-3 years.

• Providing regular reviews of manuscripts.
• Maintaining oversight of the editorial process for individual manuscripts (mainly by making the final decision regarding whether or not a paper can be published after peer-review and revisions);
• Understanding, leading and upholding ISRDO’s peer review guidelines and ethics guidelines;
• Suggesting  research topics and subjects for the journal;;
• Provide input or feedback regarding journal policies;
• Help to promote the journal among their peers or at conferences;
• Attend Board Meetings to suggest journal development strategies;
• Provide assistance in solving appeal cases or ethical disputes.

Invitation to Review

Manuscripts submitted to ISRDO journals are reviewed by at least two experts. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and to provide a recommendation to the external editor on whether a manuscript can be accepted, requires revisions or should be rejected.

Reviewing a Manuscript: Step-by-Step Guidelines for Review Editor : more-information 

We ask invited reviewers to:

• Accept invitations quickly, based on the manuscript title, abstract and conclusion;
• Suggest alternative reviewers if an invitation must be declined;
• Request an extension in case more time is required to compose a report;
• As part of the assessment, reviewers will be asked:
• To rate the originality, significance, quality of the presentation, scientific soundness, interest to the readers, overall merit and English level of the manuscript;
• To look at the reference list of the manuscript and check if there are inappropriate self-citations;
• To provide an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript;
• To provide a detailed, constructive review report;

Rating the Manuscript

Please rate the following aspects of the manuscript:

• Originality/Novelty:  Is the question original and well defined? Do the results provide an advance in current knowledge?
• Significance: Are the results interpreted appropriately? Are they significant? Are all conclusions justified and supported by the results? Are hypotheses and speculations carefully identified as such?
• Quality of Presentation: Is the article written in an appropriate way? Are the data and analyses presented appropriately? Are the highest standards for presentation of the results used?
• Scientific Soundness: is the study correctly designed and technically sound? Are the analyses performed with the highest technical standards? Are the data robust enough to draw the conclusions? Are the methods, tools, software, and reagents described with sufficient details to allow another researcher to reproduce the results?
• Interest to the Readers: Are the conclusions interesting for the readership of the Journal? Will the paper attract a wide readership, or be of interest only to a limited number of people? (please see the Aims and Scope of the journal)
• Overall Merit: Is there an overall benefit to publishing this work? Does the work provide an advance towards the current knowledge? Do the authors have addressed an important long-standing question with smart experiments?
• English Level: Is the English language appropriate and understandable?

Manuscripts submitted to ISRDO journals should meet the highest standards of publication ethics:

• Manuscripts should only report results that have not been submitted or published before, even in part.
• Manuscripts must be original and should not reuse text from another source without appropriate citation.
• For biological studies, the studies reported should have been carried out in accordance with generally accepted ethical research standards.

If reviewer  editor become aware of such scientific misconduct or fraud, plagiarism or any other unethical behaviour related to the manuscript, they should raise these concerns with the in-house editor immediately.

Overall Recommendation

Please provide an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript as follows:

• Accept: The paper is accepted without any further changes.
  
• Minor Revisions: The paper is in principle accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments. Authors are given 5-7 days for minor revisions.
• Major Revisions: The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point by point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. Usually, only one round of major revisions is allowed. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within 7-10 days and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments.
• Reject: The article has serious flaws, makes no original contribution, and the paper is rejected with no offer of resubmission to the journal.

Note that your recommendation is visible only to journal editors, not to the authors.

Review Report

Review reports should contain:

Review reports contain rating of different section:

1. Title/Abstraction/ Introduction
2. Methodology
3. Results/Discussions
4. Conclusion
5. References/Footnote/Figure/Table

Review reports contain comment of different section:

• A brief summary (one short paragraph) outlining the aim of the paper and its main contributions.
• Broad comments highlighting areas of strength and weakness. These comments should be specific enough for authors to be able to respond.
• Specific comments referring to line numbers, tables or figures. Reviewers need not comment on formatting issues that do not obscure the meaning of the paper, as these will be addressed by editors.

Note that ISRDO journals follow several standards and guidelines, including those from the ICMJE (medical journals), CONSORT (trial reporting), TOP (data transparency and openness), PRISMA (systematic reviews and meta-analyses) and ARRIVE (reporting of in vivo experiments). See the Publishing Standards and Guidelines page or contact the editorial office for more details. Reviewers familiar with the guidelines should report any concerns they have about their implementation.

Reviewers must not recommend citation of work by themselves or close colleagues when it is not clearly necessary to improve the quality of the manuscript under review.

Your comments should not include an indication of whether you think the article should be accepted for publication. For further guidance about writing a critical review, please refer to the following documents:

• COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Committee on Publication Ethics
• Hames, I. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2007.
• Writing a journal article review. Australian National University: Canberra, Australia, 2010.
• Golash-Boza, T. How to write a peer review for an academic journal: Six steps from start to finish. 

Ethical Standards: Advisory Editor ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES

Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review helps the publisher make editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with the author, can also help the author improve an article. Peer review is an essential component of formal academic communication and is at the heart of the scientific method. In addition to the specific ethical responsibilities described below, reviewers are generally asked to treat the authors and their work as they would like to be treated themselves and to respect the wording "good criticism". Any selected reviewer who does not feel qualified to review the reported research in a manuscript or knowing that his quick re-reading will be impossible should inform the editor and refuse to participate in the proofreading process.

Confidentiality: Any manuscript received for review will be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers will not share any criticism or information about the article with anyone, nor will they communicate directly with the authors without the permission of the publisher. Some editors encourage discussions with co-workers or joint review exercises, but reviewers must first discuss them with the editor to ensure that confidentiality is respected and that participants receive adequate credit. Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript will not be used in the reviewer's own investigation without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through the peer review will remain confidential and will not be used for personal purposes.

Alertness to Ethical Issues: Reviewers should be alert to potential ethical issues in a document and, where appropriate, inform the editor, including any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published material that is personally available to reviewers. . Any statement that an observation, derivation or argument has already been reported must be accompanied by the corresponding quotation.

Standards of Objectivity & Competing Interests: Reviews of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and should consider this when reviewing an article. The personal criticism of any author is inappropriate. Reviewers must express their views clearly and with supporting arguments. Examiners should consult with the editor before accepting to revise a document for which they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from relations or competitive, collaborative or other relationships with authors, companies or institutions related to this document. If a critic suggests an author to include citations in the work of the author (or his collaborators), this must be based on genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing the number of references from the critic or improve the visibility of your work (or their associates).