Double-Blind Peer Review Process of ARF India
Publishing any paper has four main pillars – Author, Editor, Reviewer and Publisher. The responsibility of augmenting the knowledge network by preserving it lies on these four.
In publishing the paper, the editor acts as a nodal agency with which the other three are associated.
The editor is to ensure that the paper he sends to the publisher for publication has high academic standards and is not making any wrong claims.
To fulfil this completely, the editor, with his editorial team, selects the experts of the paper, sent by the author, to make them reviewer(s) of the paper who will check the contents of the manuscript for false claims, false data, plagiarism, academic standards, etc.
The editors choose the reviewers from well-reputed academic institutions and universities worldwide. ARF India doesn't have any internal reviewers.
ARF India believes that knowledge is preserved through unbiased evaluation of the paper, so the identity of both the author and reviewer is kept anonymous to each other. This process is called the double-blind peer review process.
While sending the paper, the author should note that the manuscript should not contain material revealing his identity. The author should send two separate files- one with the credentials of the author and the other having manuscript without revealing the identity of the author or the funding agency.
The editor will take care that the contents of the paper sent by the author do not reveal his identity. If the author can’t hide his identity in the manuscript, then the editor will make the necessary provisions to hide this.
The editor will temporarily remove the part that exposes the author's identity while sending the manuscript to the reviewer. If the reviewer has given his recommendation for publication of the paper, then the editor will add the temporarily removed parts of the reviewer’s approved manuscript before publishing it.
In such temporary omission and addition, the editor will take care that it does not alter the academic rigout of the paper.
Reference
COPE Council. (2020). Sharing by a reviewer on social media. URL- https://publicationethics.org/case/sharing-reviewer-social-media
Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T. and Adeli, K. (2014). Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide, The Electronic Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EJIFCC). Oct; 25(3): 227–243.
URL-https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/#:~:text=IMPACT%20OF%20THE%20PEER%20REVIEW,that%20will%20advance%20the%20field
