Home

Review Guidelines

Review Policy

Journal of Ultra Scientist of Physical Sciences from Bhopal India  is an international  double blind peer reviewed journal, that means that identity of author(s) and reviewers are hidden from each other throughout the review process. The old ISSN of JUSPS was 0970-9150.

Important Points for Reviewers

• Before accepting an article for review, ensure that the reviewer is free from any conflicts of interest and the reviewer is aware of the confidentiality requirements and basic principle of peer review.
• Are the author(s) credible?
• Does the article meet high quality scientific research and credibility?
• Checking the references whether done properly or not?
• Check whether the articles have any recognizable plagiarism?
• Check whether the article in compliant with the Aims and Scope of the journal.
• Does the article contain disqualified content?
• Checking the article for meeting ethical requirement.
• Write a detailed report of assessment. Point out the major short comings of the paper.

Please do not use straight forward statements on whether the paper should be published or not.

Basic Principle of Peer Review

Reviewers are asked to provide thoughtful and unbiased feedback to authors to ensure that the conclusions of the articles are valid and supported by the data and manuscripts achieve reasonable standards. Reviewers should focus on scientific content of the article.

Scientific quality and Credibility

The arguments and conclusions of the paper under review should be valid and supported by data reported in the paper or referenced in other papers. The paper under review should be written in proper English and proper technical words should be used to fit for a scientific journal.

Readability and Presentation

The paper under review should be read without difficulty. If the paper under review reads badly you should recommend copy editing as a condition of acceptance.

Referencing and Plagiarism

The paper under review should be free from unreferenced material published elsewhere. If you identify material that appears to be plagiarized please inform the Editor/Chief editor.

Suitability for the Journal

The paper under review should fit within the aims and scope of the journal it has been submitted to. The paper under review should not be likely to bring the journal into disrepute should it be published owing to the paper’s content or the content of other papers published elsewhere by the same author(s).

Validation of Data

Results should be capable of being reproduced under same conditions, environment  and procedure as stated in the research article by the author(s).

Author(s)

Authors should disclose their affiliation and work at credible recognized private or public institutions.

Disqualified Content

Papers under review containing content which is unscholarly or generally regarded as pseudo-sciences are not acceptable for publication under any circumstances If the paper under review contains any such material declare it in your review and recommend rejection.

JUSPS requires authors to confirm that they complied with all necessary ethical requirements around identifiable human subjects and experiments involving humans and animals, both when their paper is submitted and prior to publication.

Declaring a Conflict of Interest

You may not undertake a peer review if you are to do it objectively. If you have agreed to review paper and subsequently identify a potential conflict of interest, inform the editor/ chief editor immediately and do not continue your review. Reviewers in a conflict of interest may not suggest alternative reviewers.

Financial and Commercial Conflicts of Interest

If the reviewer is deemed to be in a conflict of interest and therefore disqualified from undertaking a peer review if you have, or have had in the past two years, any commercial association or financial interests which may be interpreted as posing a conflict of interest, including but not limited to consultancies, employment, expert testimony, honoraria retainers, stock holdings or options and memberships on boards of for profit organizations with a financial interest in the work under review.

Professional and Institutional Association

The reviewer is deemed to be in conflict of interest and therefore disqualified from undertaking a peer review if:

• You have worked at the same institution at any time in the past two years as an author of the paper under review.
• You have co-authored a paper, chapter, monograph, abstract or poster with the author of paper in the past four years.

Social and familiar Association

The reviewer are deemed to be in a conflict of interest and therefore disqualified from undertaking a peer review if:

• You have a personal social association with the an author of paper under review
• You are a family member of any of the authors of the paper under review.

Other Disqualifications

The reviewer is disqualified from undertaking a peer review if:

• You have ever been subject to a professional disciplinary hearing.
• You are not currently working in the filed of paper under review.
• You are a member of any journal’s editorial board that any authors of paper under review are also members of, or have been in the previous 12 months.
• You are the Chief Editor of Associate Editor of the journal to which the paper under review has been submitted.