Peer Reviewers Evaluation Process and Guideline
Receipt of a manuscript is acknowledged promptly by the Editor. An initial screening is done to determine the suitability of the manuscript. Key evaluation factors considered are theoretical and practical significance, interest to ORSEA Journal target readership, originality, appropriateness of style and presentation, methodology, clarity and accuracy of expression. Assuming the manuscript is considered suitable for publication, it is assigned to two or more blind reviewers. Each reviewer provides careful evaluation of the manuscript, makes a recommendation to the Editor, and provides comments for the author(s). The Editor appraises the reviews and makes a final decision regarding publication of the manuscript. Every effort is made to obtain prompt reviews and make early decisions (about eight to ten weeks) regarding publication. Possible decisions on a manuscript are: (i) Accepted as it is, (ii) Accepted after minor revision, (iii) Accepted after major revision OR (iv) Rejected. If minor revision is required, authors should return a revised version as soon as possible, but not more than 15 days. If major revision is required, authors should return a revised version within 25 days. In conducting the peer reviews, the following evaluation form is used.
OPERATIONS RESEARCH SOCIETY OF EASTERN AFRICA JOURNAL REVIEWER’S GUIDELINE[1]
Title:
|
Assessment Criteria |
Scale |
Rating |
|
|
Importance/significance/likely citation impact |
1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 |
3 |
|
|
Use of operations research perspective |
1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 |
2 |
|
|
Literature review/awareness |
1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 |
1 |
|
|
Interest to operations research target readership |
1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 |
4 |
|
|
Originality |
1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 |
3 |
|
|
Contribution to theory/knowledge/policy/practice |
1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 |
1 |
|
|
Appropriateness of style and presentation |
1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 |
2 |
|
|
Appropriateness of methodology |
1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 |
1 |
|
|
Clarity and accuracy of expression |
1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 |
2 |
|
|
Use of concepts and theories |
1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 |
3 |
|
|
Referencing according to appropriate standard |
1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 |
2 |
|
|
Overall evaluation of article |
1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 |
2 |
|
|
Comments to Author: |
1. |
||
Reviewer Recommendation (Kindly Mark Appropriately with an X)
Accept [ ]
Minor Review [ ]
Major Review [ ]
Reject [ ]
[1] 1 = Lowest, 2 = Low, 3 = Average, 4 = High, and 5 = Highest
