Peer Review Policy

All research articles published in Nepalese Journal of Insurance and Social Security undergo full peer review, key characteristics of which are listed below:

1. This is a double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. Authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity.
2. Author(s) needs to submit the title page containing the Authors details and Blinded Manuscript with no author details as 2 separate files. Title page should include the title, authors' names and affiliations, and a complete address for the corresponding author including telephone and e-mail address.
3. All information indicating the author’s identity needs to remove from the article viz. names and affiliations under the title within the manuscript and citation of the own papers.
4. Need to remove the identity of Author, use the third person to refer to work the Authors have previously undertaken, e.g. replace any phrases like “as we have shown before” with “… has been shown before [Anonymous, 2007]”.
5. Need to make sure figures do not contain any affiliation related identifier.
6. Need not eliminate essential self-references or other references but limit self-references only to papers that are relevant for those reviewing the submitted paper. Cite papers published by the Author in the text as follows: ‘[Anonymous, 2007]’. For blinding in the reference list: ‘[Anonymous 2007].
7. The funding sources (if any) need to remove, not include acknowledgments, remove any identifying information, including author names, from file names and ensure document properties are also anonymized.
8. List of peer reviewers is prepared based on their area of expertise. Reviewers are requested to fill up the consent form, sign and send it to the office.
9. All research articles are reviewed by at least two suitably qualified experts. If their conclusions are not unanimous, a third reviewer may be consulted.
10. Editorial Board will decide promptly (within one week of submission) whether to reject or request revisions of referred papers based on the reviews and editorial insight of the supporting journals based on general quality, relevance and originality.
11. Peer Reviewers need to provide constructive suggestions, and comments to the manuscript. The recommendation of the reviewer should be one of the following categories:
    1. Accept without modification
    2. Accept with minor modifications to improve its quality
    3. Major modifications required
    4. Reject (manuscript is of low quality or low interest to the readership)
12. In addition, Editors will have the option of seeking additional reviews when needed. Authors will be advised when Editors decide further review is needed.
13. Besides the quality of the subject matter, peer reviewer needs to suggest on grammar and language of the manuscript.
14. Peer reviewers must keep any information regarding the identity of the authors and the content of the manuscript confidential. Peer review comments should be objective and constructive without being of a hostile or derogatory nature.
15. All publication decisions are made by the journals’ Editors-in-Chief and Managing Editors based onof the reviews provided.

Peer reviewer should:

• Respect the confidentiality of peer review and do not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal.
• Not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.
• Only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess within a reasonable time frame.
• Not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religion, political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.
• Be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments.
• Acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing, in a timely manner.
• Provide personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise when creating or updating journal accounts.

1.   Reviewers are expected to provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript:

• Key results: Please summarize what you consider to be the outstanding features of the work.
• Validity: Does the manuscript have flaws which should prohibit its publication? If so, please provide details.
• Originality and significance: If the conclusions are not original, please provide relevant references. On a more subjective note, do you feel that the results presented are of immediate interest to many people in your own discipline, and/or to people from several disciplines?
• Data & methodology: Please comment on the validity of the approach, quality of the data and quality of presentation. Please note that we expect our reviewers to review all data, including any extended data and supplementary information. Is the reporting of data and methodology sufficiently detailed and transparent to enable reproducing the results?
• Appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties: All error bars should be defined in the corresponding figure legends; please comment if that’s not the case. Please include in your report a specific comment on the appropriateness of any statistical tests, and the accuracy of the description of any error bars and probability values.
• Conclusions: Do you find that the conclusions and data interpretation are robust, valid and reliable?
• Suggested improvements: Please list additional experiments or data that could help strengthen the work in a revision.
• References: Does this manuscript reference previous literature appropriately? If not, what references should be included or excluded?
• Clarity and context: Is the abstract clear and accessible? Are abstract, introduction and conclusions appropriate?
• Please indicate any particular part of the manuscript, data, or analyses that you feel is outside the scope of your expertise, or that you were unable to assess fully.
• Please address any other specific questions asked by the editor via email.

Duration of peer review: Generally, the duration of peer review is 15 days but in case of emergency sometimes the editorial may request reviewer to complete the review of manuscript earlier than the deadline. Another 15 days will be given to the author to improve the manuscript as per the suggestions and comments. Another 15 days may take for review of the revised manuscript. The total time of reviewing and finalizing the paper may take a maximum a 3-month period.

Notification of acceptance of the paper: If the manuscript undergoes review, final acceptance of the paper will be notified to the authors within 90 days. 

Notification of rejection of the paper: If the paper is found out of the scope of the journal, or quality of the paper is significantly sub-standard, it will be rejected by the desk editor within a week of receiving the manuscript. If the paper is substandard but does not meet the minimum standard after revision by the authors and rejection by the reviewer, the information of rejection will be communicated within 90 days.