Peer review is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or commentary to experts in the same field to determine suitability for publication in the journal.  The peer-review process and the recommendations of expert reviewers assists the Editor-in-Chief or designated member of the Editorial Board to recommend publication of the articles that meet certain standards.  Among these is to determine if the: empirical research is of general interest and appropriate to the scope of the journal, uses acceptable methodology, analyses, if the conclusions are supported by the results and if the submission contributes to or advances the field of study. The submitted articles must be unbiased, well referenced and in the format required of the journal.

Reviewers can recommend to the Editor-in-Chief that a submission is accepted "as it is", accept with recommended revisions or reject.  Invited members of the Editorial Review Board play a key role in Open Access publishing work and the Peer Review system is an essential procedure for disseminating quality research. Archive of Gerontology and Geriatrics Research welcomes doctoral level scientists, researchers, academicians and scholars interested in serving as volunteer reviewer. If interested, contact us at [email protected]

Guidelines for Peer-Reviewers:

• Reviewers should not reveal his/her identifying information at any stage.
• Reviewer should not show any favouritism or partiality or prejudice while reviewing the manuscript.  
• If a Reviewer has a perceived conflict of interest in reviewing a submission, they should decline or discuss the potential conflict with the Editor-in-Chief.
• Reviewers should present the receiving letter once it is assigned.
• Reviewers must comply with the review process timeline described in the invitation to review.
• Reviewers determine the scientific merit, originality and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it; and recommending acceptance or rejection using the rating scale or Reviewer Form the Editor-in-Chief provides.
• If the manuscript does not meet the criteria of the journal or is does not meet scientific rigor, the reviewer conveys this directly inform to the Editor-in-Chief.
• Articles are assigned based on the research interests of the reviewer. If in case, if the manuscript is beyond the knowledge of reviewer, reviewers should immediately contact the assigned editor or editorial office.
• Reviewers should provide constructive suggestions and guidelines to authors to make revisions to improve the manuscript, if possible.

Timeline for manuscript processing

Manuscripts are assigned to expert reviewers in specific fields based on the article title and key words.  Reviewers are selected by the Editor in Chief or an appropriate member of the Editorial Board or Editorial Office.  

Reviewers must complete their review of submitted articles within 10 days of receipt of the assignment. If required, they may request a reasonable extension.

Authors must complete any revisions and resubmit their manuscript within 5 days based on the decision of Editor, and depending on whether the revisions are minor or major in nature.

The Editor will make a decision regarding accepting or rejecting a manuscript within two days of receiving the revised version.  

Editorial office will reformat and upload the manuscript to the website within three business days from the accepted date to finalize the publication process.

Benefits for Peer Reviewers

• Reviewers who participate in 10 peer reviews per year will receive a discount on their own future submissions to the journal.
• If a reviewer brings an institutional/university membership to editorial office, he/she will receive a waiver on the publication of their manuscript
• Reviewers who refer colleagues to submit manuscripts to the journal will receive a fee waiver on his/her submission.
• Editorial/research/review article, reviewers will receive a complete waiver (publish article with free of cost).

Call for Peer Reviewers

If you would like to begin your association with the journal as a peer reviewer, kindly send a letter of interest, your areas of expertise and interest and a complete CV to: [email protected].

Rejection Criteria

The article submission can be rejected at any stage before official publication of the article, during initial validation, peer review, final validation for the following reasons:

1. The manuscript is out of scope of the Journal.
2. The article does not have a valid research hypothesis or there are clear objective errors in the procedure of the study.
3. The manuscript is a duplication of previous work and the plagiarism percentage is more than 40%.
4. The authors have not adhered to our authorship guidelines or have presented the article in a deceitful way.
5. The language and presentation of the manuscript is not adequate or of good quality for doing peer review.
6. The references are outdated and do not reflect the current status of knowledge in the field.
7. When the study's conclusions are misleading and could even pose a public health threat because of faulty analysis of biased nature.
8. The rejections will also be based on case to case content.