Manuscripts submitted to ISI 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. The reviewer, as an editorial member, of Ideas Spread plays an essential role in the peer review process. Whether a submitted paper is published, mostly depends on the evaluation of reviewer. Therefore, we sincerely welcome specialists and scholars to join us.
The Requirements of Reviewers
- Reviewers should possess a doctoral degree in relevant field of the journal;
- Hold a teaching or research position at a university or academic institution;
- All the submitted papers are written in English, so reviewers must be fluent in English;
- Reviewers have enough time to finish the review task and include feed back in the appointed time;
- Accept or decline any invitations quickly, based on the manuscript title and abstract;
- Suggest alternative reviewers if an invitation must be declined;
- Request an extension in case more time is required to email related journal editor;
- Reviewers are required to follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)’s COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
How do you Become a Reviewer of Ideas Spread?
This is a voluntary job, no payment★. If you are interested in the reviewer position of Ideas Spread and meet all the requirements above, please download and fulfill the application form, and then contact the journal editor for submitting your application. The editorial board will assess your qualification based on your application form and give you feedback as soon as possible. After that, you will be added into our editorial board. It is noteworthy that we will recognize our most extraordinary reviewer to be the Honorary Editor-in-Chief.
1. Complete the application form. Download Here
2. Send your application form to the journal’s e-mail address. Journals List
Prospective reviewers may also be interested in the Publons Academy, which provides training in how to conduct peer review.
For further guidance about writing a critical review, please refer to the following documents:
- COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Committee on Publication Ethics.
- 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.
★ G Program 1.7
We implement an incentive program from September 1, 2019, called Standing on the Shoulders of Giants (G Program), the program will be updated irregularly, Please follow our Twitter.
- to give the reviewer a discount, DN (Discount Number) is permanently valid;
- Encourage reviewers to contribute;
- to improve the enthusiasm of the reviewers;
- improve the quality of the review;
- to improve the assessment standard for reviewers;
- improve the quality of published articles;
- Reviewer Certificate is more valuable;
Implementation Detail (timelines: 20190901-20221231)
- Add an appendix in review form, which contains the details of the specific review requirements. The reviewer need make detailed evaluation and recommendations on the requirements part. Editorial board qualification will be cancelled, if review form is not meet the requirements multiple times.
- Provide Reviewer Certificate along with the DN for qualified reviewer, give a 10% discount per DN, DN is accumulable, ten DNs will get 100% discount, that publish one paper online for free. The DN is valid permanently, but they can be used together in two consecutive natural years. (DN composition: review time + name initials; For example: 201901010101WDT+ 202012312359WDT+ … (2+8DNs)=Free,
- The DN can be used only by the owner, and it is best to submit it to the journal editor along with the manuscript, no later than the payment, not available after payment. However, the DN is still valid and can be used next time.
- Add modification explanation of the author along with the revised manuscript, which describes the changed details according to the recommendations of the review form. At least one reviewer will be invited to review again.