Frontier Anthropology is a peer-review journal following the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE: https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers). The peer reviewer is responsible for the critical appraisal of the manuscript after thorough reading and evaluation. It would enhance the quality of the manuscript. The reviewer will provide constructive feedback to improvise the manuscript, finding out the weakness and significance of the manuscript. Peer-reviewer will also evaluate the novelty, methodology constraints and relevance of the research problem in the anthropology knowledge.
Thorough peer review is a time-consuming task but is essential to assure the quality of scientific journals. The Editorial Team of Frontier Anthropology is thankful to all the reviewers who accept reviewing the manuscript submitted to the journal despite their busy schedule. The time and efforts invested by these reviewers will credit Frontier Anthropology to a better platform.
The review of the manuscript submitted for publication in Frontier Anthropology is done through a double-blind review process. As per journal policy, the authors’ identities are kept confidential to the reviewer, and the same reviewers’ identities are hidden from the authors. We follow specific regulations to identify the potential review based on the study area. Decisions to accept or reject the manuscript for publication solely depend on the novelty, rationality, contribution to the current anthropological knowledge, and reviewers' recommendation.
The reviewer should check the study area before accepting the manuscript for review, and it should be within his/her area of expertise. If the reviewer cannot review the manuscript, he/she may decline the review request and is encouraged to suggest an alternative reviewer. The reviewer is requested to finish the manuscript review within a month from the receipt of the manuscript. The reviewer can decline to review manuscripts in which he/she has conflicts of interest with any associates of the manuscripts - the authors, companies, institutions, collaborators and others. If any problem arises in reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer can contact the Editorial Team of Frontier Anthropology at email@example.com
The reviewer needs to focus on the following important points while reviewing the manuscript.
1. Content Quality and Novelty
The reviewers are requested to check the manuscript's quality, rationality, and novelty that will add up the existing knowledge of anthropological queries and related areas. Apart from this, the reviewer also needs to see whether the article adheres to the journal’s standards.
2. Organization and Clarity
While reviewing the manuscript, the reviewers are asked to scrutinize the manuscript deeply to check whether the following conditions are fulfilled
i) Title: The title should clearly describe the theme of the article.
ii) Abstract: Abstract should reflect the content of the article.
iii) Introduction: The introduction should give a background of the research problem or review relevant articles to bring the study's rationale. It should discuss the notion of the arguments in the proposed research work or the hypothesis.
iv) Method: The author should explain the methodology in details, such as how the data were collected, study design, techniques involved in the data collection, variables used in the study, measurement if there is any. The method should also cover the sampling procedure, statistical analysis too. The reviewer also needs to verify whether the author(s) follow the ethical consideration in collecting the data.
v) Results: The author(s) must present the study's findings in a prominent, logical and sequential way. For the quantitative study, the findings have to be presented along with the tables and figures. The reviewer will check for any inconsistencies in the figures cited in tables or figures with the texts. For qualitative research, the reviewer(s) will see for the continuity and consistency of the data presented.
vi) Conclusion/Discussion: The discussion must be precise and discussed based on the findings. The discussion should bring a direction to the research question or should contribute to the existing knowledge. Apart from this, the discussion should also point out the limitation and significance of the study. The conclusion part should be precise, and it should indicate the future perspective of the studied work.
vii) Tables, Figures, Images: The reviewer(s) will check the appropriateness and informative value of the tables, figures, images.
viii) References: The review will see whether the author(s) follow the APA style of referencing both in text and end of the manuscript.
3. General Comment: The reviewer can give general comments on the manuscript, such as the English grammatical errors, poor presentation of the manuscript, etc. The reviewer also will see if there is any plagiarism or fraud. If there is, please report to the Editorial team.
Please submit the “Reviewer’s Comments” form before the due date. The reviewer’s recommendation regarding an article will be strongly considered when the editors decide. The reviewer’s thorough, honest feedback will be much appreciated in this regard.
Guidelines to Reviewer