Reviewers Page

Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is an honor. Though, it is a time-consuming responsibility. Hence, Journal of Humanities Insights' Editorial Board, authors, and audiences appreciate your inclination to accept this responsibility.

All manuscripts submitted in JHI are pre-reviewed by the reviewers, and if appropriate, sent for double-blind peer review, that is rapid, fair, and ensures a high quality of articles published. 

Journal of Humanities Insights needs reviewers who can provide perceptive and useful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turn-around time of about less than4 weeks.

In order to preserve Journal of Humanities Insights as a scientific journal and to achieve an acceptable quality, JHI needs reviewers with high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and perceptive in their evaluation of manuscripts.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

(https://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf)

If Journal Humanities Insights' Editor-in-Chief has invited you for reviewing a manuscript, please take into account the following:

1. To help authors improve their work, reviewing of manuscript should be carried out constructively and provide comprehensive comments on the manuscript.
2. Multiple versions review of a manuscript should be conducted if necessary
3. All required information within tight deadlines should be provided.
4. Clear recommendations for improving the manuscripts should be made.
5.  Any potential conflicts of interest in relation to the authors or the manuscript content should be announced.
6. Any possible research misconducts should be stated.
7. If the reviewers cannot review the manuscript for any reasons, they should suggest substitute reviewers.
8. Reviewers should treat the manuscript as completely confidential.
9. Reviewers should not make any use of the work described in the manuscript.
10. Reviewers should not communicate with authors, if they identify the authors in some way.
11. Reviewers should not identify themselves to authors.
12. Reviewers cannot pass the assigned manuscript to another reviewer.
13. This assurance must be achieved that manuscript is of high quality and original work
14. Reviewers should inform the editor about assigning the manuscript in any other publication
15. Review report should be written in English only.
16. Reviewers should write a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript. 

What Should Be Checked while Reviewing a Manuscript?

1. Novelty
2. Originality
3. Scientific reliability
4. Valuable contribution to the science
5. Adding new aspects to the existed field of study
6. Ethical aspects
7. Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines
8. References provided to substantiate the content
9. Grammar, punctuation and spelling
10. Scientific misconduct