A peer review process is followed to improve the quality of the article.  A minimum of one reviewer and one internal editor, in blind review, who are recognised specialists specific to the topic and area of the submissions, are appointed by the editors. All peer review reports are mailed to the contributors.

Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is a privilege. However, it is a time-consuming responsibility. Hence, Cultural Narrative Editorial Board, authors, and audiences appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedication. Cultural Narratives adheres to a blind peer-review process that is rapid and fair, and also ensures a high quality of articles published. In so doing, Cultural Narratives needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turn around time of maximum 8 weeks. Maintaining Cultural Narratives as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts. The review process will be carried out by at least two reviewers, Editorial team and reviewer.

 If Cultural Narratives  Editor-in-Chief has invited you to review a manuscript, please consider the following:

1. Reviewing manuscript critically, but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their work
2. Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary
3. Providing all required information within established deadlines
4. Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal
5. Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review
6. Reporting possible research misconducts
7. Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reasons
8. Treating the manuscript as a confidential document
9. Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript
10. Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow they identify the authors
11. Not identifying themselves to authors
12. Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer
13. Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work
14. Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge
15. Writing review report in English only
16. Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript.

Here list of items that need to be reviewed:

1. Novelty of the topic
2. Originality
3. Scientific reliability
4. Valuable contribution to the science
5. Adding new aspects to the existed field of study
6. Ethical aspects
7. Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines
8. Abstract (objectives, method, results, finding, and conclusion)
9. Introduction (Background of the study, Rationale of the research, urgency, and gaps analysis)
10. Method (Methodology, Source data and Data limitation, Data analysis procedures, and limitation of the study)
11. Results and Discussion
12. Conclusion
13. References provided to substantiate the content
14. Grammar, punctuation, and spelling