Reviewers Guidelines

The Journal of University Grants Commission is a multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal published annually by the UGC containing quality articles mainly based on research. Reviewers are expected to be critical and evaluate the articles on the basis of following guidelines.

 

  1. When requested, the reviewer must agree to review only if he/she has the necessary expertise in the area to assess the manuscript in line with the given format.

 

  1. Reviewers must do the review professionally. If reviewer feels that he/she does not have enough expertise on the issue/discipline, he/she should decline to review and inform the editor immediately after receiving the manuscript.

 

  1. Reviewer must make sincere effort to complete the task within given time frame maintaining confidentiality and impartiality.

 

  1. Criteria for Reviewers

4.1. General

Content Quality and Originality

  • Is the article new and interesting to warrant publication?
  • Does it add to the existing scholarship on the field?
  • Does the article merit the journal’s standard?
  • Does the article belong to 20% of papers in this field?

Organization and Clarity

  • Title: Does the title clearly describe the article?
  • Abstract: Does the abstract reflect the content of the article?
  • Introduction: Does it clearly state the purpose of the article? Problem being researched? Method being used? Does it sufficiently provide the scholarly context of the research?
  • Method: Does the authors clearly explain how data was collected and interpreted? Is the research design suitable to answer the questions posed? Is there sufficient information so as to replicate the method?
  • Results: Has the author conducted appropriate analysis? Is the information/ statistics presented accurate and reliable?
  • Conclusion/ Discussion: Are the claims made in this section supported by results, evidence, reasoning? Has the author explained how the results support the conclusion/ discussion? Does the conclusion explain how the research moved the existing knowledge forward?
  • Scope: Is the article in line with the journal’s purpose and scope?

 Writing and Formatting

  • Is the writing clear, grammatically sound, and logical?
  • Is there consistency in style, spelling, and punctuation?
  • Does the article follow prescribed documentation style throughout?
  • Are the in-text citations clearly referenced in the references page?
  • Does the article follow standard formatting convention for tables, graphs, and images?

Ethical Consideration

  • Are sources consistently credited and acknowledged?
  • Does the article show a clear distinction between author’s language and source language?
  • Does the research follow research ethics?

4.1.2 Ranking

Articles will be rated as:

S. N.

Issues

Excellent

Good

Moderate

Poor

1

Abstract

 

 

 

 

2

Strength/usefulness of the issue

 

 

 

 

3

Originality

 

 

 

 

4

Adequacy and clarity of data/information

 

 

 

 

5

Interpretation and analysis of the data/information

 

 

 

 

6

Clarity in the issue

 

 

 

 

7

Understanding on  language and grammar

 

 

 

 

8

Seriousness in proof reading

 

 

 

 

9

Consistency in writing

 

 

 

 

10

Adequacy/ appropriateness of referencing

 

 

 

 

11

Structure and demonstration of evidence in conclusion

 

 

 

 

12

Appropriateness of citation and references

 

 

 

 

13

Overall format/structure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1. General Impression of the reviewer

 

 

  1. Recommendation to the editor/s

S. N.

Recommendation

Tick in one

1

Un conditionally accepted

 

2

Accepted with minor revision

 

3

Accepted with major revision and improvement

 

4

Rejected