Peer Review Process
Reviewers are appointed to evaluate each paper by the editorial board. The experts from outside the institution review the articles submitted by authors at University of Kelaniya. A period of one month is given for reviewing and an incentive payment is made if the reviewers return the evaluated paper within 3 weeks. However, in practice, the time taken to receive the evaluated articles vary between 3 weeks to 2 months. Recently, actions were taken to forward the soft copies of the article and the relevant guidelines and formats via email for the reviewers who prefer electronic versions, which has speeded up the process. The journal uses a double blind peer-review process and the editorial board makes the final decision based on the approved criteria for the evaluation and finally accepted by the research & publication committee of the university.
A Brief Guide for Reviewers
Only original and unpublished research papers as well as review articles written in English are acceptable for publication in the Kalyani Journal, University of Kelaniya. In reviewing a manuscript, you are requested to consider whether it contains significant scientific contribution.
Your recommendation whether the manuscript should be (i) accepted in its present form, (ii) accepted with minor/major revisions, or (iii) rejected is essential. In the case of rejection, please provide a brief explanation why the manuscript should be rejected.
The reviewers are kindly requested to answer the following questions, which would be helpful for the editor to determine the standard of the manuscript.
- Is the work new and original or review?
- Is the methodology adequately described?
- Is it clearly presented and well organized?
- Does it contain any material that should be omitted?
- Does it give adequate reference to the prior works?
- Is the Title of the manuscript appropriate?
- Does the abstract summarize the work?
- If relevant, is the sample size calculation clear, and is the sample adequate?
- Are the results relevant to the focus/hypothesis?
- Are the interpretation, discussion and conclusions comprehensive and justified by the data?
- Are illustrations and tables acceptable in the present form?
- Are the conclusion drawn warranted from the data and its interpretation?
- Is the language satisfactory?
- Do you recommend the article for publication in this Journal? (mark only one)
Yes, in its in present form.
Yes, with minor review.
Yes, with major review
No, not without complete re-writing/re-organization
No, not at all (Reject)
If the Article should be published should it be published as a:
A standard paper
Please provide detailed comments to the Author(s) and/or to Editor, if any, on a separate sheet. In the case of rejection, please provide a brief explanation why the manuscript should be rejected.
- Open Submissions
- Peer Reviewed