Peer Review Process

Every manuscript submitted to the Journal undergoes a double-blind peer-review process, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process

The entire editorial workflow is performed using the online review system. Once a manuscript is submitted for publication, it is checked to ensure whether the files are complete in all respects and that the relevant metadata is in order. Once this is done, the manuscript is assigned to Associate Editors on the basis of their subject expertise.

Articles failing to reach the scientific standards of the Journal are declined without further review by the Associate Editor. The assigned Associate Editor recommends at least three reviewers who are experts in the field and agree to provide a rapid assessment of the article. The reviewer(s) send separate comments for editors as well as for authors in the reviewer's form.

 

Reviewer’s Name

 

 

 

Qualification:

 

 

Position:

 

 

Department:

 

Institution/address

 

 

 

 

 

Phone No. (+91)

 

Email address:

 
         

           

 

Unable to Comment/
Not Applicable

Poor/
Inappropriate

Fair/
Just Appropriate

Good/
Appropriate

Importance of Subject

 

 

 

 

Ethical Aspects

 

 

 

 

 

Adequacy of Abstract

 

 

 

 

Approach or Experimental Design

 

 

 

 

Results

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusions and Interpretation

 

 

 

 

Relevance of Discussion

 

 

 

 

References

 

 

 

 

 

Figures and Table

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    Is there a new message from the manuscript:Yes/No

 

2.    Priority (if accepted):

 

 a)         High                   b)           Low                                  c) Medium

 

 3.    Do you think this article, if accepted, requires commentary or editorial?

 

a)   Yes, I would like to write a commentary

b)   Yes, but I do not want to write a commentary

c)    No, This article does not require a commentary

 4.    Competing interests (a/b):

a)     I declare that I have no competing interests

b)      I have declared competing interests in the box for "Comments for editorial Staff"

 
 

Referee’s Comments:

  1. Remarks for Editor (Confidential remarks for editor)

 

  

 

 

 

  1. Remarks for Authors (These are the remarks transmissible to the authors)

 

 

      

 

 

  1. Recommendation
  2. Accept Submission b) Revisions Required

 

  1. Decline Submission d) See Comments

NB.       Please retain your comments for few weeks but destroy any copies of this manuscript and not use the phrases, ideas, or graphics of this manuscript, under any condition.
 

 Whereas the comments for editors are kept confidential, the comments for the latter are sent to the concerned authors for helping them to revise the manuscript with the necessary changes as suggested by the reviewers. The Reviewers may recommend the following decisions to the editors:

  1. Accept Submission
  2. Revisions Required
  3. Resubmit for Review
  4. Resubmit elsewhere
  5. Decline Submission
  6. See Comments

 The Editorial process takes 4-6 weeks. The Editorial Board of our Journal is responsible for the final selection of referees to conduct the peer-review process for that Journal. If the Editorial Board recommends "Accept Submission," the manuscript will undergo a final check by the Journal's Editorial Team to ensure that the manuscript and its review process adhere to the Journal's guidelines and policies. Once done, the authors will be notified of the manuscript's acceptance.

 Publication Frequency

All papers are published as soon as they have been accepted, by adding them to the 'Table of Contents of the "Current Volume."