Review Policy

Eligibility
Being a reviewer is a matter of prestige and personal achievement. The benefits of reviewing include the opportunity to see and evaluate the latest work in your research area at an early stage. You may also be able to cite your work for the journal as part of your professional service contributions. Eligible for a reviewer of New Horizons is a person, who is recognized as an expert in a particular scientific field of interest of the journal, with a strong publication history, working in an academic/research institution, or as an individual researcher, who accepts New Horizons standards, instructions for reviewers and publication ethics, work promptly and correctly under firm deadline and speaking English fluently and using internet actively.


Benefits to Reviewers
1. Being a reviewer opens doors to incredible opportunities. Review services will enhance your knowledge of professional standards and quickly earn the respect of your peers.
2. The other potential benefit of being a reviewer is that you will be preferred to be an Editorial Board Member.


Reviewer Selection
We decide on reviewers for a particular article based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations of authors, etc. Reviewers for the articles will be found issue by issue. As part of our editorial procedure, we regularly confer with potential reviewers before sending them articles to review. Reviewers should bear in mind that even these initial messages or conversations contain confidential information. Reviewers invited by the editors should reveal any potential conflict of interest they may have concerning the article or the authors. All likely personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest should be considered.

The reviewers are vital to the publication process, and as a reviewer, you will gain valuable experience in scientific publishing.

The editors reserve the right to make the final decision with respect to reviewers.     


Ensuring a Blind Peer-Review
To ensure the integrity of the blind peer review for submission to this journal, every effort should be made to prevent the identities of the authors and reviewers from being known to each other. This involves the authors, editors, and reviewers (who upload documents as part of their review) checking to see if the following steps have been taken concerning the text and the file properties:

  1. The authors of the document have deleted their names from the text, with "Author" and year used in the references and footnotes, instead of the authors' name, article title, etc.
    2. With Microsoft Office documents, author identification should also be removed from the properties of the file.

    For Microsoft 2003 and previous versions, and Macintosh versions of Word:
    Under the File menu select: Save As > Tools (or Options with a Mac) > Security > Remove personal information from file properties on save > Save.

    For Macintosh Word 2008 (and future versions)
    - Under the File menu select "Properties".
    - Under the Summary tab remove all of the identifying information from all of the fields.
    - Save the File.

    For Microsoft 2007 (Windows):
    - Click on the office button in the upper-left hand corner of the office application.
    - Select "Prepare" from the menu options.
    - Select "Properties" for the "Prepare" menu options.
    - Delete all of the information in the document property fields that appear under the main menu options.
    - Save the document and close the document property field section.

    For Microsoft 2010 (Windows):
    - Under the File menu select "Prepare for sharing".
    - Click on the "Check for issues" icon.
    - Click on "inspect document" icon.
    - Uncheck all of the checkboxes except "Document Properties and Personal information".
    - Run the document inspector, which will then do a search of the document properties and indicated if any document property fields contain any information.
    - If the document inspector finds that some of the document properties contain information it will notify you and give you the option to "Remove all", which you will click to remove the document properties and personal information from the document.

    For PDF files:
    With PDFs, the authors' names should also be removed from Document Properties found under File on Adobe Acrobat's main menu.


Criteria for Publication
Articles should represent a substantial advance in the particular field within the scope of the journal in terms of:

  • Originality (in an empirical or theoretical sense);
  • Importance to researchers in the field; and
  • Interest for readers and researchers outside the field.

 

Peer-Review Process

  • After receiving the article, the corresponding author is sent a confirmation email.
  • Articles are subject to initial editorial screening and anonymous peer review by one reviewer, who will be selected by the editors. The guarantor of the manuscript quality is the advisor. Firstly, the submitted articles will be evaluated within our initial editorial screening. After this preliminary stage, only afterward it will be submitted to the peer-reviewers. Our journal operates a closed peer-review process, meaning that reviewers will not know the author's details and will themselves remain anonymous to the author.
  • The journal editors reserve the right to return to authors, without peer-review, improperly formatted articles.
  • The journal editorial office does not store electronic materials that are not accepted for publication and does not deliver them back to the authors.
  • The originals of the review are stored in a review of the editorial board for one year.
  • All articles will be checked for plagiarism before being sent to the reviewers. The journal uses the plagiarism screening tool PlagScan, but also reviewers should alert the editors if they suspect any issues relating to author misconduct such as plagiarism.
  • All articles are evaluated according to the reviewers’ recommendations.

There are several types of decisions possible:

  1. Accept the article as submitted;
  2. Accept it with minor revision;
  3. Accept it with major revisions; and
  4. Reject the article because it does not fit the journal criteria.

 

Expectations Post Review
(in compliance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers)

Peer-reviewers should:

  • Continue to keep details of the article and its review confidential.
  • Respond promptly if contacted by a journal about matters related to their review of an article and provide the information required.
  • Contact the journal if anything relevant comes to light after they have submitted their review that might affect their original feedback and recommendations.
  • Read the reviews from the other reviewers, if these are provided by the journal, to improve their own understanding of the topic or the decision reached.
  • Try to accommodate requests from journals to review revisions or resubmissions of articles they have reviewed.

 

We appreciate the time and effort all our reviewers spend evaluating articles for New Horizons.