Review Policy and Process

  1. Submission completed by author(s)
    1. Once the submission is completed, it will be presented to chief editor or associate editor.


  1. Initial evaluation by chief or associate editor.
    1. The chief-editor or associate-editor decides whether the article meets the authors guideline and the scope and standard of the Journal.
    2. If found suitable, he then forwards it to one of the editors (now onwards will be referred to as “Focal editor”) of the editorial board based on expertise and availability to carry out the review process.
    3. The rest of the review process will be carried out by focal-editor.


  1. Submitting the article for review to the reviewer.
    1. Focal editor reviews the article himself in addition to forwarding it to peer reviewers.
    2. Peer reviewers will be selected based on expertise of subject of the paper, availability and past goodwill (timely and quality review).
    3. Each manuscript will be reviewed by at least two reviewers, ideally three.
    4. Focal editor sends email invitation for review to peer reviewer.
    5. Email contains information about the Journal, title, abstract, date, review deadline (usually 2 weeks).
    6. It will be a double blind review process; neither peer reviewer knows the author nor the author knows the peer reviewer.


  1. Reviewer should not accept article if he has competing interest
    1. Despite blind review, reviewer recognize the author and think this makes his evaluation strongly biased.
    2. Reviewer is aware that he lacks sufficient scientific background to perform a substantive review of the manuscript.


  1. Time
    1. Reviewer should reply the invitation email indicating his acceptance or refusal for review within 5 days and finish the review process within 15 days of receiving email.
    2. This will prevent unnecessary delay in review process.


  1. Confidentiality
    1. Reviewer should keep the manuscript and its contents confidential, both while doing the review and afterwards.
    2. Review documentation should be stored in a secure manner to prevent unauthorized access. When it is no longer required, it must be destroyed.
    3. Comments made during the review of an application or conclusions must never be discussed or disclosed with individuals not involved in the review process.


  1. Writing the Review
    1. The purpose of the review is to provide the editor with an expert opinion regarding the quality of the manuscript under consideration, and should also supply authors with explicit feedback on how to improve their papers so that they will be acceptable for publication.
    2. For maintaining complete transparency, there should not be confidential comments for the editors. Reviewers should assume that all the comments they make may be relayed to the authors.
    3. We encourage reviewers to go through the reviewers' guideline and mark their comments and suggestions in the manuscript as part of their review. The manuscript file will be activated to track changes. Reviewers have to upload the file as part of their review. Please remember to anonymize your comments.
    4. Editing reviewers' reports
      1. The focal editor does not edit any comments made by reviewers unless the language is deemed inappropriate or the comments contain information considered confidential.


  1. Focal editor issues one of the decision based on his own and peer review comments.
    1. "decline submission"
    2. Request for "resubmit for review"
    3. Request for "minor revisions required" or
    4. "initial acceptance, pending editor approval"
      1. Such manuscript will be reported to the chief editor and will undergo editorial review.
      2. Once editors are satisfied that the manuscript is suitable to be published, the Editor-in-chief will issue the final "acceptance letter".
      3. The article then enters the production phase.


  1. Resubmit or revisions
    1. Author(s) who receives resubmit or minor revisions required, has to do so within a month.
    2. There is no guarantee that manuscript will be accepted after that.
    3. Resubmitted manuscript will follow the original submission and will be acted upon by the focal editor with or without the reviewers input. Generally, it will be sent for the original reviewers for their opinion.
    4. Manuscript resubmitted with minor revisions will generally be assessed by the focal editor and will not be sent to the reviewers.


  1. Next correspondence with author(s)
    1. Author will be sent a "copyedit" form of the manuscript by the production team. Author should review and approve the accuracy of contents. Substantial changes are not allowed without the permission of editor-in-chief.
    2. Another final version of the manuscript will be presented to author to review the typographical errors.