Reviewer Guideline

Review procedure and reviewer guidelines

Once the manuscript is submitted the editors will quickly access whether it is suitable for the journal and whether authors have followed all guidelines. The manuscripts that are clearly unacceptable will be returned by the Editor-in-Chief without being reviewed. If found suitable manuscript will be sent to two reviewers for evaluation. Initially, the reviewer will be sent an invitation along with the abstract for reviewing the manuscript which needs to be accepted or rejected within one week. After the acceptance reviewer will be given four-week time to review the manuscript and submit the report. If the report of both the reviewers are contradictory, then manuscript will be sent to third reviewer. The author(s) will be communicated about the decision and needed corrections if accepted. The author will resubmit the corrected manuscript within 15 days. A revised manuscript must be accompanied by a report detailing how the revised manuscript addresses the concerns raised by the reviewers. In case of major revision, the manuscript will be again sent to the same reviewers for re-evaluation and then only final decision will be taken. The author(s) will submit the publication charge only after acceptance.  

Cryptogam Biodiversity and Assessment follows double blind review system wherein both author(s) as well as reviewers kept anonymous from one another. The reviewer should not accept to review if he/she sense any conflict of interest in the manuscript. The manuscripts are evaluated on the basis of their relevance, novelty, originality, significance and presentation. The reviewer will check whether there are sufficient reviews available in the introduction, aim of the study is clearly mentioned, materials and methods are appropriate, the results are acceptable, discussion is sufficient and due acknowledgement is proposed. The reviewer can use track changes on word file to mark the corrections and comments or scan the hardcopy after correction by pen/pencil. A detailed evaluation report is highly appreciated, especially for manuscripts needing major revision. An overall rating for the manuscript can be given based on the quality of the manuscript. Finally, the decision of the reviewer should be mentioned as, 1. Accept as such, 2. Accept with minor revision, 3. Accept with major revision, 4. Reject.