Double Helix Research Instructions for Reviewers

The quality of any journal mainly depends upon the referees. The editorial board members of our Journals are therefore expected to follow and maintain the basic rules of science while reviewing any sort of manuscript. To meet the dead-line of the publication the reviewers are expected to review the article within one weeks time as speedy processing is our commitment. Therefore reviewers are expected to select potential articles which do not demand repeated reviews.

 

Criteria for Reviewing:

Reviewers could judge any manuscript on the basis of following criteria:

  • Technical Presentation: The research article should be technically presented instead of being presented as a story.
  • Novelty: The work should have at least some degree of novelty. Mere repetition of past work should not be accepted. You can look for conceptual advancement over previously published work. Any major omission of the previously published findings on the similar problem must be checked.
  • Repeatable Work: Repeatability of the work is the basic principle of science. Kindly check whether the presented work could be repeatable.
  • Interpretation of Result: The discussion should hover around the result and should not include irrelevant and unachievable statement.
  • Statistical Presentation: Proper statistics should be applied over the data wherever found necessary.
  • Plagiarism of Data: Data showing any type of suspicion, duplication and manipulation must be brought to the notice of the author(s). Reviewer can use Free Online Resources to Check Plagiarism.
  • Reviewer can put the article in any category after scrutinizing it i.e., an article submitted as research article can be categorized as news article after our referee's recommendations. No author can recommend or force Double Helix Research or its associated Journals to change the category of the article.
  • Summary: Pin point the strength and weakness of the article considering potential importance of the work in the context of present and future.
  • Conclusion:At the end reviewer(s) can recommend necessary corrections needed to accept the paper, if they are actually required, else recommend it for publication. If found unsuitable the paper should be declared as unacceptable for publication.

 

Note: Complete manuscript must be reviewed in any case. All the suggestions for corrections in the manuscript must be given within brackets using red colored fonts. Portion of text requiring corrections can be underlined if necessary. Reviewers are requested to avoid any personalized remarks which may hurt the sentiments of author(s) or may be viewed as biased. Authors are further recommended to go through our Terms and Conditions before submitting their manuscripts.