Peer Review Process

Authors must submit manuscripts through the system to be considered for publication in the Volunteer Report. The manuscript must go through a peer review process (Double blind-review) for publication. We only publish articles reviewed and approved by highly qualified researchers with expertise in a field appropriate (at least two reviewers per article).

The steps for the reviewing process are in the following figure:

The journal editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and arrives at a decision. The following are the most common decisions:

  • Accept without any changes (acceptance): the journal will publish the paper in its original form.
  • Accept with minor revisions (acceptance): the journal will publish the paper and asks the author to make small corrections.
  • Accept after major revisions (conditional acceptance ): the journal will publish the paper provided the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors.
  • Revise and resubmit (conditional rejection): the journal is willing to reconsider the paper in another round of decision-making after the authors make major changes
  • Reject the paper (outright rejection): the journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions

Peer Review Policy

Volunteer Report employs an online system for both submission and review of the article. This system must be used by every proposed article and in accordance with the Peer Review Policy.

Selection of papers

The Editorial Board is committed to ensuring that the peer-review process is efficient and timely. Paper is selected based on the quality of the content, and the topic must clearly be within the focus and scope of Volunteer Report.

Selection of reviewers

The Editorial Board will select reviewers based on their expertise in the subject matter of the article, and they must consider any potential conflict of interest created by the reviewers in order to determine whether or not bias exists.

The research article must be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers, and if necessary, the editorial board will acquire an additional opinion, such as by adding a third reviewer, fourth reviewer, and subsequent. Editorial board adheres to the best practice guidelines provided by the Publisher to avoid selecting counterfeit peer reviewers.

Review process and transparency

The review process will observe the following factors: aim and scope, novelty, objective, method, scientific impact, conclusion, and references. The remarks of reviewers will be forwarded to the corresponding author for any required actions or feedback. The editorial board will evaluate the reviewer's comments and decide the final decision on the submission based on the reviewer’s recommendation. Further, the final decision is notified to the corresponding author.

The online submission system is used for all correspondence among the Editorial board, author, and reviewers. Volunteer Report also applies Turnitin to screen plagiarism.

Confidentiality

The Editorial Board is responsible for maintaining the anonymity of all information submitted to the journal as well as all correspondence and discussion with reviewers. The editorial board will also ensure that reviewers and authors are unknown of each other identity (double-blind review method).

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

The editorial board will adhere to the Peer Review Policy on author and reviewer disclosure of conflicts of interest. The Editorial Board will provide assistance and guidance to authors and reviewers across the publishing process.

Peer Review Guideline

The following questions should be considered before you accept or decline the review invitation:

  • Is your expertise area relevant to the article? It must be relevant to ensure the best remark from you.
  • Do you have any potential conflict of interest? If any, disclose to the editor.
  • Is your time enough? Reviewers should commit to the deadline due to the review process is taking time.

Either accept or decline to review the article, please respond to the invitation soon. The slow response will delay the review process. Please suggest alternative reviewers if you decline the invitation.

Review Comment

The editor will evaluate your review as a reference for acceptance or decline of the article. Thus, your review must be constructive and objective in relation to the article. Despite this, your comments should be polite. The review process adheres to double-blind which means the reviewer should avoid remarks or any personal information.

You are also encouraged to provide the article’s deficiencies. The review must be written clearly so that both the author and the editor can comprehend your perspectives on remarks. You must also specify your review as a private matter or based on data contained in an article or other sources.

Reviewers Checklist

  • Express your overall impressions about the reviewed article, including whether it is original, innovative and engaging, and has a significant impact on the body of knowledge
  • Provide specific comments and suggestions about the title, abstract, introduction, method, statistical errors, results and discussions, conclusion, language, and references.
  • If the article is suspected of plagiarism, cheating, or any other ethical concern, you must notify the editor with attach any supported documents or data. You can visit Volunteer Report webpage or the COPE guideline to gain additional information about Volunteer Report Publication Ethics
  • Under COPE criteria, reviewers must consider any articles assigned to them as confidential materials. Because peer review is confidential, they must not disclose the review or information about the review to anybody unless the editors and authors involved agreeing. This is conducted both during and after the publishing process.
  • Any suggestion for the author to cite the reviewer’s publication (or their collaborators’) must be for proper scientific reasons, not to improve the reviewers' citations or reviewer’s publication (or collaboration) being more visible.

The final decision

The editor will evaluate and consider all comments and recommendations, if necessary, the third opinion is involved or request the author to revise the article prior to making the final decision. Editor decides the final decision on whether accept or decline the submission.