Review Process and Plagiarism Detection

The Editorial Board of the UJMEMS journal believes that peer review is the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research and the plagiarism detection process is at the heart of scientific publishing. Peer review is used to assess the validity, quality and often the originality of articles for publication. Its ultimate purpose is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out invalid or poor quality articles.

The Editorial Board of the UJMEMS journal relies on the double blind peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of individual articles. The reviewers don't know the identity of authors, and vice versa.

The Editorial Board  uses Unicheck Plagiarism Checker (https://unicheck.com/) and StrikePlagiarism Plagiarism Detection System (http://strikeplagiarism.com/) to verify the originality of papers submitted to the UJMEMS journal.

Plagiarism Detection                  Plagiarism Detection

 

The review process

1. Submission of Paper.

The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal via an online system or by email.

2. Editorial Board Assessment.

The journal checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief.

The Editor-in-Chief checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further. The Editor-in-Chief verifies the originality of papers using Unicheck Plagiarism Checker (https://unicheck.com/) and StrikePlagiarism PLAGIARISM DETECTION SYSTEM (http://strikeplagiarism.com/). If the originality level is insufficient, the article is automatically rejected.

4. Invitation to Reviewers.

The Editor-in-Chief sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained – for our journal this is 2.

5. Response to Invitations.

Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline the invitation. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.

6. Review is Conducted.

The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision before it is reconsidered. In order to prepair the review report, the reviewer should use the following Guidance for Reviewer.

7. Journal Evaluates the Reviews.

The Editor-in-Chief considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.

8. The Decision is Communicated.

The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments.

9. Next Steps.

If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the Editor-in-Chief should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the Editor-in-Chief.

 

Review Process

AttachmentSize
reviewerreport.doc53 KB