When an article is submitted to MRC it is initially checked for
completeness, ensuring that all of the necessary files have been
uploaded correctly and that the pdf generated by the ScholarOne system
renders accurately. Once these checks have been completed the article is
assigned to an Editor who make further checks on the suitability of the
manuscript. In general the Editor will ask the following questions of
the manuscript;
Is this article in a fit state to send to referees?
Does the topic fit the journal?
Is the article type correct:
Should this be a Short communication rather than a full paper?
Is the novelty high enough?
Is there significant difference to prior work?
Is the research important to researchers in this field?
Is the research important to our readers?
Is it likely to get cited and/or downloaded in significant volume
These processes ensure that the paper is suitable for the journal and
the journal’s for peer reviewers.
If the manuscript satisfies these criteria the editor will proceed with
distributing the research for peer review evaluation.
It might be that the article satisfies the scope and readership criteria
but an image file is missing corrupted, in such an event the manuscript
is “unsubmitted” meaning that it is returned to the author for the
error to be corrected. Once corrected the resubmitted version will be
dispatched for peer review. \cite{wikipedia}
XII. Peer review
A rudimentary explanation of Peer Review from Wikipedia is that
“Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people
of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers).
It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a
profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed
to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide
credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an
academic paper’s suitability for publication.”
Peer review in academic journals has witnessed varying models and
challenges over the past 10 years but remains thus far, the de facto
quality control mechanism of academic journals. Magnetic Resonance in
Chemistry maintains a single blind peer review model. That is to say,
the authors of the manuscript are disclosed to the referees but the
referees are not disclosed to the authors. There are many different
positions on the prefered peer review model with differing models
determined by the behaviours and norms of each community. A single blind
model as adopted by Magnetic Resonance in Chemistry enables a peer
reviewer to declare conflict of interest based on knowledge of the
authors while protecting them from retribution by potentially
disgruntled authors. In a academic environment where peer reviewers are
a finite commodity a single blind model can in some way make the
provision of reviews more attractive. It is of course the Editor’s
responsibility to ensure that the peer review distributed to authors are
constructive and not inflammatory in any way.
Why do we peer review?