Board Responsibilities

EDITOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES

  1. The Editors are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published;
  2. The Editors may discuss with other editors or reviewers in making decision;
  3. The Editors evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors;
  4. The Editors must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate;
  5. The Editors are responsible for ensuring fairness in the editorial process and for investigating any suspected cases of plagiarism;
  6. The Editors should ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process;
  7. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the manuscript in his or her own research without the express written consent of the author;
  8. The Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct.

 

EDITORIAL BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES

  1. The Editorial Board must keep information pertaining to submitted manuscripts confidential;
  2. The Editorial Board must disclose any conflicts of interest;
  3. The Editorial Board must evaluate manuscripts only for their intellectual content;
  4. The Editorial Board is responsible for making publication decisions for submitted manuscripts.

 

REVIEWER’S RESPONSIBILITIES

  1. Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information;
  2. Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments;
  3. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that had been previously reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the relevant citation;
  4. Reviewers should request to the Editors attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge;
  5. In case, any reviewer feels that it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then the same must be communicated to the editors, so that the same could be sent to any other reviewer;
  6. Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

 

AUTHOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES

  1. The Authors should submit papers only on work that has been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and that complies with all relevant legislation;
  2. The Authorspresent   their   results   clearly,   honestly,  and   without   fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation;
  3. The Authors should endeavor to describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed by others;
  4. The Authors should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original, is not plagiarized, and has not been published elsewhere;
  5. The Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere;
  6. The Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others this must be appropriately cited;
  7. The Authors should take collective responsibility for submitted and published work;
  8. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Duplicitous or expressively inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable;
  9. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work;
  10. The Authors should ensure that the authorship accurately reflects individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting; and where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged;
  11. The Authors should disclose relevant funding sources and any existing or potential conflicts of interest. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed;
  12. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editors and the editor to retract or correct the paper.

 

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

  1. Manuscript Submission
  • The author submits a manuscript to journal via its online submission system.
  • The manuscript must comply with the journal’s formatting and submission guidelines.
  • A cover letter is usually included to highlight the significance of the work
  1. Initial Editorial Screening
  • The editor-in-chief or handling editor does a preliminary check to assess:
  • Relevance to the journal's scope
  • Basic quality and originality
  • Compliance with ethical standards
  • Manuscripts may be desk rejected at this stage if they are unsuitable or of low quality.
  1. Assignment to Reviewers
  • If the manuscript passes the initial screening, it is assigned to 2–3 expert reviewers (also called referees) in the relevant field.
  • Reviewers are often anonymous (depending on the type of peer review).
  • They assess the manuscript's methodology, analysis, novelty, and clarity.
  1. Peer Review
  • Double-blind: Reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers.
  1. Reviewers Submit Reports
  • Reviewers typically provide:
    • Detailed feedback (comments on strengths, weaknesses, errors, or needed improvements)
  • A recommendation, such as:
    • Accept Submission
    • Revision Required
    • Resubmit for Review
    • Resubmit Elsewhere
    • Decline Submission
  1. Editorial Decision
  • Based on reviewers’ comments and recommendations, the editor makes a decision:
  • Accept: The paper is accepted with or without minor revisions.
  • Revise and Resubmit: Authors must address concerns and submit a revised version.
  • Reject: The paper is declined, often with feedback for improvement.
  1. Revision and Resubmission
  • The author revises the manuscript and writes a response letter detailing how each comment was addressed.
  • The revised manuscript may be sent back to the same reviewers for reassessment.
  1. Final Decision
  • Once all concerns are satisfactorily addressed, the editor makes the final decision to accept the manuscript.
  • The paper then proceeds to copyediting, typesetting, and eventually publication
  1. Publication
  • Accepted papers are published in online.