To establish and maintain the level of excellence of a journal it is necessary that submitted papers be critically read by someone who can judge the correctness, originality, and significance of the work. A good peer review includes dependable information based on thoughtful assessment of the manuscript and relevant literature; objectivity is critical, with an appropriate degree of detail to communicate positive and negative aspects of a manuscript.
How to become a reviewer?
Reviewers for MWP journals are selected by the handling editors on the basis of their knowledge of the field. MWP offers in-house expertise in academic and production matters with the recognition that each author needs the support of scholarly expertise provided by independent Editorial Boards. Volunteer reviewers apply their expertise and spend countless hours of their time to ensure that submitted articles are timely and worthy of inclusion in their publications. It's not really a question of becoming a reviewer. Most people are invited by the Editor of a journal to conduct a review. An Editor may approach you because you are a specialist in a certain field or research topic.
Abstracts of articles within a reviewer's given area of expertise are sent via e-mail to the reviewer. Within 3 days, the reviewer is asked to indicate willingness to review and availability to perform the review within a 2-week time frame.
The Review Process
Each manuscript is reviewed by MWP staff for relevancy to the individual journal. Should a question arise, the editorial coordinator or the production editor will contact the editor in chief (or an appropriate editor), who then decides whether the manuscript should be transferred to another MWP journal, editorially rejected owing to scope, or retained for review by the journal to which it was submitted. The professional and academic editors then together make a decision based on the reviewers' comments.
Manuscripts must represent technically competent work; however, the primary criterion for acceptance or rejection will be the work's level of practical or reader interest. Otherwise, the review process and publication process for practice periodicals is the same as for the journals. If the manuscript has numerous grammatical mistakes that inhibit the ability of a reader to understand the arguments, you may recommend rejection without writing a detailed review.
There are several types of decision possible:
the manuscript as submitted
- Accept it with minor revision
- Invite the authors to submit a major revision of the manuscript before a final decision is reached
- Reject, typically because it does not fit the criteria outlined above of originality, importance to the field, cross-discipline interest, or sound methodology
If you have reasons to believe that the material is not original or has been plagiarised, please alert the handling editor or the editorial office.
MWP is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication. To avoid delay in publication of important scientific work, we request that reviewers return their comments within the time indicated at invitation. If any unanticipated difficulties arise that may prevent you from submitting the review on time, contact the editorial office immediately.