Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process (Double Blind)
The peer review process is a crucial step in the publication of scientific research to ensure the quality, validity and credibility of articles by submitting them to critical review by experts in the field before publication.
The expertise of the submitted article is transmitted anonymously to two experts of magistral rank (Lecturer A or Professor) chosen from a list of experts present in the database, which has a large number of experts. This selection is done using specific keywords and themes.
When selecting experts, those who belong to the institutions of the authors are excluded in order to ensure an impartial and objective evaluation of the submitted work.
In the peer review process, two independent experts in the relevant research area of magistral rank are selected from a list of experts in the database, using specific keywords and themes. The experts evaluate the article anonymously, without knowing the identity of the authors, and the authors do not know the identity of the experts. This anonymity avoids potential biases and ensures an objective evaluation of the submitted work.
These experts, also called "peers", carefully examine the article to assess its methodology, relevance, scientific rigor, results and conclusions.
Reviewers provide detailed feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the article, and may recommend changes, revisions or even rejection of the article if it does not meet the required quality criteria.
This peer review process is essential to ensure the credibility and reliability of research. It allows to filter articles of inferior quality or containing methodological errors, and to ensure that only high-quality works are published.
- Quality control
The evaluation sheets allow the editor to make the decisions to preserve the quality of the journal based on the expertise namely the relevance, originality and validity of the content of the article.
- Constructive criticism
Peer review expertise provides constructive feedback and clear suggestions to help authors improve their article in the future. The expert who agrees to evaluate an article plays an essential role in serving the journal, the authors of the article and the scientific community as a whole.
By providing constructive criticism, the expert can highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the article, identify methodological or conceptual gaps, and propose recommendations to improve the quality and relevance of the research. Constructive comments can also help authors clarify their arguments, strengthen their analysis, and present their results more convincingly.
The objective of this constructive critique is to guide the authors in their revision process, providing them with specific advice and concrete suggestions for improving their article. This ensures that published work is of high quality and meets expected scientific standards.
Peer review expertise contributes to the continuous improvement of scientific research by encouraging authors to push the boundaries of their work, develop innovative ideas and produce high-quality articles. This benefits not only the journal and the authors, but also the entire scientific community by promoting the advancement of knowledge and stimulating quality research.
In the academic community, carrying out evaluation mandates is a common practice for most researchers. This is considered a privilege as reviewers have the chance to familiarize themselves with new ideas in their field even before they are published. However, it is also an important responsibility.
It is important to note that the evaluation of items is generally an unpaid task. Researchers who agree to conduct these assessments often do so out of conviction, as they see it as contributing to a collective effort to maintain a high level of quality for the articles they read and use in their own research.
Carrying out evaluation mandates in the academic environment is both a privilege and a responsibility. Researchers usually do so on a voluntary basis as they see it as helping to maintain a high level of quality in scientific research and supporting the collective effort of the scientific community.
Agreeing to evaluate an article represents a commitment to the scientific community and authors. For this reason, experts are asked to respect certain expectations and rules, including:
Sufficient competence: Experts must have sufficient expertise and knowledge in the field of research of the article being evaluated. This allows them to provide an accurate and relevant assessment.
Respect of deadlines: Experts must respect the deadlines set for the evaluation of the article. This ensures a quick and effective evaluation of the authors' work.
Confidentiality: Experts must respect the rules of confidentiality by not disclosing the information contained in the evaluated article. This ensures the protection of authors' rights and the confidentiality of research work.
Anonymity: In many cases, peer review is done anonymously, meaning that the authors do not know the identity of the experts who evaluated their article. This ensures an impartial and objective assessment.
Avoid conflicts of interest: Experts must avoid any conflict of interest that could compromise the objectivity of their assessment. For example, if an expert has personal or professional ties with the authors of the article, it is better to decline the invitation to the evaluation.
By respecting these expectations and rules, experts help maintain the integrity and quality of scientific research, while supporting the scientific community as a whole.
