Peer Review Flowchart
1. Manuscript Submission
Authors submit their original papers online via the Submission portal.
2. Initial Screening
The Editor-in-Chief reviews scope, relevance, and initial suitability.
3. Plagiarism Check
Manuscript undergoes text verification using plagiarism detection tools.
4. Double-Blind Peer Review
Sent to independent academic reviewers. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous.
5. Reviewer Feedback
Reviewers submit detailed reports and criteria ratings to the Editor-in-Chief.
6. Revision & Re-submission
Authors adjust manuscript according to comments and re-submit draft.
7. Final Decision
The Editor-in-Chief issues final acceptance or rejection decision.
8. Publication & Indexing
Approved papers are copyedited, formatted, and published online.
Reviewer Guidelines
We ensure that the peer-review process is double blinded so that it shall remain fair and unbiased.
We are very grateful to all our reviewers who put their valuable effort and time into evaluating manuscripts and supporting us during this journey to convert preliminary manuscripts into suitable standard publications.
Based on author suggestions and bibliographical knowledge, potential and active reviewers are identified.
The evaluations and comments of reviewers play a critical role in final decisions taken by the Editor-in-Chief, considering multiple contributing factors such as relevance and impact of research.
Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality throughout the evaluation process. Objective feedback aimed at improving scientific merit is essential.
Standard Review Conformation Points
- The title & content shall be within the scope of the journal.
- Providing relevant information for a wider network of readers within the journal preview.
- All sections (title, abstract, keywords, methods, conclusions) are consistent with the paper's objective.
- Writing is clear, logical, and easy to comprehend without unnecessary distractions.
- The methodology is clear and can be repeated by another researcher.
- Appropriate ethical approvals, statistical methods, and analytical procedures are present.
- Constructive suggestions are provided regarding expansion, merging, or deletion of content.
Editors’ Role
- Holding a vital position to take important editorial decisions on all peer-reviewed articles submitted for publication.
- Maintaining academic transparency, precluding unethical practices, and publishing retractions or errata when required.
- Assessing manuscripts objectively based on scientific quality, free from discrimination.
- Evaluating manuscripts free of commercial or self-interests.
- Maintaining strict confidentiality regarding submitted manuscripts prior to publication.
Reviewers’ Role
- Providing a detailed, constructive, and unbiased evaluation in a timely manner.
- Indicating whether the writing is relevant, concise, and clear.
- Maintaining the confidentiality of the complete review process.
- Notifying the editor of any personal or financial conflicts of interest.
Authors’ Role
- Reporting original work that is completely free from any form of plagiarism.
- Ensuring the work has not been published elsewhere or submitted concurrently to another journal.
- Disclosing any potential conflicts of interest and acknowledging all funding sources.