To join as a Editor/Reviewer in WAST Journals and Conferences, please fill online form
About Editorial Members
Benefits to Editorial Board Members
- Certificate to serve as a WAST editor will be given to all the editorial board members.
- Keynote Speakers and Session Chair for the WAST Conferences will be invited from the Editorial Board Members.
- They can avail a discount of extra 15% (along with membership discount) of the paper publication in WAST conferences and international journals.
- Editor’s name and affiliation will be listed in the Journal’s website and each proceeding of conference with his/her photo and information.
- Editors can become nominated for the “Editor’s Award”, which recognizes the outstanding support and role played in building International image of the journal.
- Editors can also propose the benefit that they intend to get through their collaboration with the journal.
- They can refer some expert to join as a WAST editor in the journal of their research interest.
Responsibilities of WAST Editors
- They recruit reviewers for the journal to conduct peer-review of assigned manuscripts.
- They have the responsibility to improve the quality of peer-review process to improve journal impact factor.
- It’s the work of WAST editors to index journal in well-known indexers, databases and websites.
- They should timely communicate with WAST committee and other associate editors.
- They have to launch special issues for the journal highlighting latest research topics.
- It is the joint responsibility for marketing plans together with Publisher.
- It’s also the responsibility of WAST editors to invite more editors to strengthen journal editorial board.
Benefits to Reviewer
- This work helps to add in and provides a better way to create your identity as a well known expert in your field and may lead to increased invitations to speak at conferences or demand for invited research of your specialized area.
- Certificate to serve as a WAST reviewer will be given to all the reviewer members.
- They can avail a discount of extra 10% (along with membership discount) of the paper publication in WAST conferences and international journals.
- They will be among the contributors who will shape and decide the urgent ways as required with changing societal needs.
- Their ideas and subject inputs may help in arranging special issues as per topics of their interest and choice.
- They will come across the latest research before everyone else and gives them a position of leadership in your research community.
Responsibilities of Reviewer
- Inasmuch as the reviewing of manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process, and therefore in the operation of the scientific method, every scientist has an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
- A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript should return it promptly to the editor.
- A reviewer (or referee) of a manuscript should judge objectively the quality of the complete manuscript and the Supporting Information, including the experimental and theoretical data, the interpretations and exposition, with due regard to the maintenance of high scientific and literary standards. A reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
- A reviewer should be sensitive to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer’s work in progress or published. If in doubt, the reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest or bias. Alternatively, the reviewer may wish to furnish a signed review stating the reviewer’s interest in the work, with the understanding that it may, at the editor’s discretion, be transmitted to the author.
- A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript.
- A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor.
- Reviewers should explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Unsupported assertions by reviewers (or by authors in rebuttal) are of little value and should be avoided.
- A reviewer should be alert to failure of authors to cite relevant work by other scientists, bearing in mind those complaints that the reviewer’s own research was insufficiently cited may seem self-serving. A reviewer should call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any ed paper or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.
- A reviewer should act promptly, submitting a report in a timely manner. Should a reviewer receive a manuscript at a time when circumstances preclude prompt attention to it, the unreviewed manuscript should be returned immediately to the editor. Alternatively, the reviewer might notify the editor of probable delays and propose a revised review date.
- Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author. If this information indicates that some of the reviewer’s work is unlikely to be profitable, the reviewer, however, could ethically discontinue the work. In some cases, it may be appropriate for the reviewer to write the author, with copy to the editor, about the reviewer’s research and plans in that area.
- The review of a submitted manuscript may sometimes justify criticism, even severe criticism, from a reviewer. When appropriate, such criticism may be offered in published papers. However, in no case is personal criticism of the author considered to be appropriate.
- Reviewers should notify editors of concerns with respect to manuscripts that report research that, based on current understanding, can be reasonably expected to provide knowledge, products, or technologies that could be directly misapplied by others to pose a threat to public health and safety, agricultural crops and other plants, animals, the environment, or materiel.
Other Roles of Reviewer
Reviewer Roles toward authors:
- Providing written, unbiased feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work, together with the documented basis for the reviewer’s opinion.
- Indicating whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant and rating the work’s composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to the journal’s readers.
- Maintaining the confidentiality of the review process: not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper.
Reviewer Roles toward editors:
- Notifying the editor immediately if unable to review in a timely manner and providing the names of potential other reviewers.
- Alerting the editor about any potential personal or financial conflict of interest and declining to review when a possibility of a conflict exists.
- Complying with the editor’s written instructions on the journal’s expectations for the scope, content, and quality of the review.
- Providing a thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work, which may include supplementary material provided to the journal by the author.
- Determining scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it; and recommending acceptance or rejection using whatever rating scale the editor deems most useful.
- Noting any ethical concerns, such as any violation of accepted norms of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects or substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript concurrently submitted to another journal which may be known to the reviewer.
Reviewer Roles toward readers:
- Ensuring that the methods are adequately detailed to allow the reader to judge the scientific merit of the study design and be able to replicate the study, if desired
- Ensuring that the article cites all relevant work by other scientists