What is Peer Review? IJMRT follows a quick evaluation method in order to substantially reduce the time to publication. Submit the original article without any plagiarism with copyright material.

After initial evaluation, the manuscripts are sent to two reviewers, which are determined by the editor and / or editorial board. If necessary the number of reviewers can be increased by the editor or editorial board. The reviewers are chosen from the referee board according to their expertise. The submitted papers will be blind reviewed by two experts out of whom one expert will be an international expert. One positive report from the reviewers is necessary.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript originality, methodology, and contribution to the literature, presentation of results and support for the conclusions and future work as well as appropriate referencing of previous relevant studies. Reviewers might accept the manuscript, reject the manuscript or might require a revision for style and / or content. Reviewers will return the review comments within 3 months after receiving the paper. The final decision for each submission will be made once the review report is received by Editor-in-Chief.

When a revision is required by the reviewer, the author(s) are to consider the criticism and suggestions offered by the reviewer and they should be sent back the revised version of manuscript within 60 days or requested time by the Editor. Revised manuscripts returned after one month will be considered as a new submission and peer review process is started from the beginning. Reviewer may request more than one revision of a manuscript.

Why peer review is so important ?

It is difficult for authors and researchers, whether individually or in a team, to spot every mistake or flaw in a complicated piece of work. This is not necessarily a reflection on those concerned, but because with a new and perhaps eclectic subject, an opportunity for improvement may be more obvious to someone with special expertise or who simply looks at it with a fresh eye through different angle. Reviewing of the research of others can identify the possible weaknesses / flaw, thus quality would be improved. For both grant-funding and publication in a scholarly journal, it is also normally a requirement that the subject is both novel and substantial.

Reviewer will evaluate the article and gives the status to the Editor as follows:

  • [1] Article may be accepted without any modifications
  • [2] Article may be accepted with minor modifications.
  • [3] Article may be accepted with major modifications.
  • [4] Article may be rejected and shall submit another article