Every article submitted to United Journal is subjected to strict plagiarism check through our countercheck process involving a specialized computer program and also manual checking. Once an article passes through this step, articles are subjected to editorial review for requirements such as scope, relevancy, etc. During peer review, specialists of relevant fields analyse from every perspective, documentation, writing, technical accuracy and its impact on and significance to the discipline.
United Journals use the review method to require care of educational standards and make sure the validity of individual works submitted for publication. Additionally, United Journals follows a Double-blinded review method, to make sure impartial editorial decision-making. Reviewers play a polar role in scholarly publication, and their valuable opinions certify the quality of the article under consideration. The review helps to sign analysis, establishing a standard for analysis inside analysis communities. When the assistant editor receives the revised manuscript, it’s allotted to the reviewer(s) once more, for approval of changes. However, the last word call to publish is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
Majorly, United Pharma International employees can do solely hosting, PDF format and style, act review method and there is no management on content and editorial follow of journals because it varies from journal to journal and editor to editor. Most of the United Pharma journals content is publication beneath inventive commons attribution licence, and United Pharma is not in control of the content of individual authors and their articles. All the journals articles printed are under the discretion of varied contributors.
There are various kinds of peer review which might be taken for consideration based on what variant is employed by the journal so you are privy to the respective rules. Each procedure has its boons and banes. Often one sort of review will be preferred for a specific subject community; however, there has been a growing demand for extra transparency across the peer review process.
In this type of review, both the reviewer and the writer remain unnamed.
Reviewers might be reluctant to criticize the work of more senior researchers – especially if their career depends on them. In smaller research communities this might be a bigger problem