Review Process & Policy

1.  Peer-Review Policy & Process

 

  • Selection of Reviewers:

 A careful selection of national and international reviewers is made keeping in view their area of research. To get an unbiased review, the names of reviewers are kept confidential. All works submitted for publication are reviewed objectively without regard to authors’ race, gender, religious view, ethnicity, citizenship, political tendency, age, and reputation.

1.2.   The Review Process

  • Received articles are initially scrutinized by the editorial committee and then processed through the double-blind peer-review
  • Sufficient guidelines along with a Reviewer’s Proforma are provided to
  • The reviewer’s comments are shared with the author who is responsible to incorporate the suggested corrections in his article.

1.3.   The Reviewer's Responsibilities

 Reviewers are encouraged

  • To comment on ethical issues and possible
  • To confirm plagiarism through Turnitin and/or searching for similar titles
  • To publish a corrigendum, remove and retract a plagiarized

2.  Transparency

  • No publication from editors
  • Only one paper as a PI (Principal Investigator) should be published in the same
  • Authorship & co-authorship policy will be strictly

3.  Conflict of Interest

  • The editors and reviewers will not edit and review a submitted paper for those author(s) and/or institution against which she/he has any conflicts of

4.  Disclosure

  • Reviewer will not use any unpublished information/data from the submitted research paper without the permission of the author(s)

5.  Publication Decisions

  • Only shortlisted research papers relevant to the scope of the journal will be published after completion of the review process
  • Acceptation or rejection of a paper will be based on academic
  • The Editor will justify the reason (s) for rejecting a research paper and will timely communicate the editorial decision to the author (s)

6.  Procedure for Appeal/Complaint Policy

The Editor is responsible for establishing a proper mechanism for appeals launched against:

  • The rejection of a research
  • Objections to publications causing harm to any
  • Infringement of Ethical boundaries in any