Peer Review Policy

The primary purpose of peer review is providing the Editor with the information needed to reach a fair, evidence-based decision that adheres to the journal’s editorial criteria. Review reports should also help authors revise their paper such that it may be accepted for publication. Reports accompanied by a recommendation to reject the paper should explain the major weaknesses of the research; this will help the authors prepare their manuscript for submission to a different journal. 

Peer reviewers should adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers.

Confidential comments to the Editor are welcome, but they must not contradict the main points in the report for the authors. Peer reviewers should assess papers exclusively against the journal’s criteria for publication. 

The following conventions should be respected:

  • Reviewers should review the peer review policy of the Journal before revealing their reviewer role.
  • Reviews should be conducted objectively.
  • Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate, as are defamatory/libelous remarks. 
  • Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and references. 
  • Reviewers should declare any potential competing interests.
  • Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts with which they believe they have a competing interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
  • Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of material supplied to them and not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their own work.
  • Any reviewer who wants to pass a peer review invitation onto a colleague must contact the journal in the first instance.

Concerns relating to these points, or any aspect of the review process, should be raised with the editorial team.

The submitted papers are assessed by a Triage/Screening Editor for originality of work, scientific adequacy and plagiarism. The manuscripts that fall within the scope of the journal and have a acceptable quality are assigned to a minimum of 2 external reviewers for peer-review. In the peer-review process both the authors and reviewers’ identities are concealed from each other to ensure a high-quality, fair, and unbiased peer-review process of every manuscript submitted to the journal. The assigned reviewers are given one to two weeks to respond to the review mail and further one week to review the manuscript. The reviewers submit their reports to the Editor for further processing.

The papers are then considered for possible publication on the understanding that they are being submitted only to one journal at a time and have not been published, simultaneously submitted, or accepted for publication elsewhere. Then the article is assessed and the author is informed if the article has been accepted for peer review or has been rejected. If rejected, the corresponding author will be informed via an email.

When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the Editor can publish the manuscript unaltered, consider after minor/major changes or reject the manuscript. In case, changes as suggested by the reviewers, the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with required amendments. The revised manuscript is reviewed after the changes have been made by the authors and accepted if it meets the publication ethics and author guidelines.

The editorial workflow gives the Editors the authority to reject any manuscript because of inappropriateness of content, inadequate quality, or inaccuracy in results.