Information For Reviewers

Thank you so much for acting as a reviewer for this Journal and for the service you provide for the MPI community by volunteering your time. As a young scientific journal and the first one that focuses only on MPI related topics, we rely on your expertise to create a high quality journal for the MPI community. This makes your role one of the key elements of IJMPI.

 

Invitation to Review a Manuscript

When we contact you as a potential reviewer, you will receive an invitation via email. Such an email will include the manuscript title, the abstract, and the names of the authors. In addition to this, we will provide a link to respond to the invitation and a deadline for the report submission. In terms of quality and good scientific practice of the review process, we encourage you to consider whether the topic is directly in or very close to your field of expertise and whether you may have a conflict of interest. In order to minimize the delay for our authors, please respond to such an invitation as soon as possible.

If you are willing to serve as a reviewer for the respective manuscript but require an extended amount of time, please contact us and we can provide an extension. If you need the full manuscript for the decision to review or not, please contact us and we will provide this information. For the case that you are unable to review a manuscript, we would highly appreciate if you would suggest an alternative reviewer.

 

Reporting on a Manuscript

When you accept to report on a manuscript, please provide detailed comments, suggestions, or questions to the author in the respective online form. In this stage, we highly rely on your expertise and a good review will not only guide the author and improve the manuscript, but also help us to make a fair decision whether or not the manuscript should be considered for publication. In all you recommendations and or statements about possible key issues with the manuscript, please be courteous to the authors. Even if you formed a strong negative opinion about the manuscript, the authors put a lot of effort in their work and rely on you as a fair scientific mentor.

In addition to the comments to the authors, confidential comments or recommendations to the editor can be provided in an individual form. If you think that more informal information about the manuscript underline your judgement or summarize them in a more direct way than the technical evaluation, please feel free to use this possibility.

 

Rating a Manuscript

For the rating of a reviewed manuscript, we will ask you about your opinion about the manuscripts scientific merit, the originality, the scientific method, the scientific rigour, the significance, the reader interest, and the overall evaluation. You will be able to perform this rating in the respective online form that features a drop-down menu for each of the aforementioned points including the ratings “excellent”, “very good”, “good”, “fair”, “poor”. In order to be considered for publication, the overall rating of a manuscript must at least be “good”.


Recommendation

Finally, your report should provide a recommendation. Based on the recommendations, the editors will decide if the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected.