Reviewer Guidelines

The reviewer is responsible for critically evaluation of manuscript in their speciality field, and then providing reverent, useful, and honest feedback to authors about their submission. It is appropriate for the Reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, ways to improve the quality of the work, and evaluate the originality of the manuscript. Following should be considered before starting the review process:

  • Please ensure that, the article you are being asked to review should match your expertise. If you receive a manuscript which is not from your area of expertise, please notify the editor at the earliest. You can also recommend alternate reviewer.
  • Review of an article should be done within two weeks. If you do not think you can complete the review within this time frame, please let the editor know and if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer. If you have agreed to review a paper but will no longer be able to finish the work before the deadline, please contact the editor as soon as possible.
  • It is important to disclose all conflicts of interest to the editors before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interests, please do not hesitate to contact the receiving editorial office.
    • When reviewing the article, please focus on the quality and originality of the article
    • The article should be well organized and structured
    • Title should clearly describe the article
    • Abstract should reflect the content of the article
    • Introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors' findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es) and the general experimental design or method.
    • Method should elaborate the method(s) for data collection, procedure followed for experimentation along with detailed information about equipment and materials used if any.
    • Results should explain what the author has discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. Reviewer should consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.
    • Conclusion/Discussion should be duly supported by the results. The authors should indicate how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
    • Tables, Figures, Images should be appropriate and understandable
    • The article should be in line with the aims and scope of the journal?
Fulltext


Indexed


Call for Papers

Invites papers for next issue of Journal of Technology Management for Growing Economies (JTMGE)
Vol. 8 Issue 2, October 2017

Frequency

Journal of Technology Management for Growing Economies (JTMGE) is published Bi - Annually

Number-1 April
Number-2 October


RNI Registration No. CHAENG/2016/68678