Peer Review Policy

  • Reviewer’s responsibility

 

Important factors to be noted by a reviewer:

 

  • Manuscripts submitted to The Maasai Mara Multidisciplinary Journal are subjected to a double-blind peer-review process. In this process, the reviewer's names and author names are hidden (the reviewer will not know who the author is and vice-versa). Up to three independent reviewers will be assigned per manuscript.
  • The article must match the area of expertise of the reviewer. As a reviewer, if you find that the article is not aligning with your subject expertise, inform the editorial office without delay.
  • Timely review and publication give professional advantages. It is therefore important to meet the deadlines and submit the report within the stipulated period. The process of reviewing the article along with recommendations must be done within 1 month.
  • Exceeding the stipulated time will lead to a delay in the editor's decision and publishing.
  • Confidentiality is mandatory for any reviewer.
  • Reviewer comments must be reasonable and must hold points firmly and logically.
  • The Journal-Peer Review Form and manuscripts will be submitted together to the reviewers for writing their evaluation report.
  • Assigned reviewers are responsible for scrutinizing a manuscript technically and the organization of the manuscript properly depending on the article type. Reviewer's comments should be brief to the point and understandable by the Editors and Authors.
  • It is compulsory to specify and match the article with the standards of the Journal.
  • The evaluation report has to be shared with the editor.
  • After evaluation of the manuscript, the reviewers will decide whether to:
  1. Accept
  2. Accept with minor revision
  • Accept with major revisions
  1. Reject (Decline with Justification).
  • If the decision is classified as ‘Accept with Minor Revision’ or ‘Major Revision,’ the author shall have 14 days, respectively, to resubmit the revised manuscript from the date of official communication of the verdict.
  • Upon resubmission, and having been satisfied that such revision was satisfactory, the Editorial Board may choose to send them to the reviewers, or may render a decision based on its expertise.
  • The Editorial Board has the discretion of rejecting a manuscript whose author fails to revise upon such recommendations.
  • In special circumstances, the contributors may be asked to suggest referees working in the same area for evaluation. However, the final choice of reviewers is a preserve of the Editorial Board.