Reviewer Guidelines

    NorCal Publishers aspires to validate the publication standards by its honor and morality. Acting as a medium in spreading the scientific contributions with quick and thorough peer review system, NorCal Publishers aspires to publish the best quality articles. With a passion to furnish optimal directions, It sticks to the COPE guidelines to maintain superlative publication standards and probity through its rigid Peer Review Policy.


    A reviewer is an efficient person with subject expertise and plays a key role in the peer review process protecting the integrity of all the published stuff. The entire process depends on the trust and collaboration of the participating Reviewers. The efforts of Reviewers are the key to the objectives of a fair and timely review process for all of our manuscripts and publication of only the highest quality articles. All the participating Peer Reviewers should cling considerate and ethical responsibility. Their positive comments and reports will help the Editor to take the final decision on the manuscript. We greatly appreciate reviewers for their help in meeting these important objectives.

    Peer Review Process:

    All the journals of NorCal Publishers follow double blinded peer review process. In this process, both the author details and reviewer details are maintained with high standard confidentiality. After the Editorial Review process, the handling Editor will consider at least two expert Reviewers in the field with the title and an abstract of the manuscript to take up the peer review process. Reviewers are anticipated to give an active prompt response when tackled. This is deliberated to boost the accuracy, clarity, and completeness of manuscripts and helps editors to decide whether the manuscript has to be published or not. Reviewers must provide reviews with clear suggestions and honest corrections to the Editor who will again forward the review reports as such to the author.


    • Reviewers should owe the confidentiality and are not recommended to disclose the information until the manuscript is published.
    • Reviewers should accept to review the manuscript only if they have adequate expertise in the subject area for accurate assessment and to give an effective report.
    • Reviewers should protect individual data. They should not use the data for their own benefit or share with any other individual or organization.
    • Reviews should be based on relevancy, integrity, scientific strength, potential interest, completeness, clarity, and ethics in the manuscript.
    • Reviewers should declare any potential conflict of interests and take assistance from the Editor regarding any of the uncertain conflicts.
    • Reviewers should proclaim if they are involved in the submitted work in any manner and decline to review the manuscript.
    • Reviewers should report the Editor if the manuscript has been already reviewed by them for any other journal and seek guidance whether to carry further or not.
    • Reviewers should advise the Editor immediately if they found any partial or whole information in the manuscript is plagiarized or violated.
    • Reviewers should declare the Editor if they have any concerns in the study, ethical aspects or a misconduct in the manuscript.
    • Reviewers are not supposed to contact the authors regarding the manuscript without the permission of the Editor.