Review Process

This journal follows strict double blindfold review policy to ensure neutral evaluation. During this review process identity of both, the authors and reviewers are kept hidden to ensure an unbiased evaluation. All manuscripts are subject to peer review and are expected to meet standards of academic excellence. Submissions will be considered by an editor and “if not rejected right away” by peer-reviewers. High-quality manuscripts are peer-reviewed by minimum two peers in the same field.

The reviewers submit their reports on the manuscripts along with their recommendation of one of the following actions to the Editor:

Publish “As it is”
Consider after Minor Changes
Consider after Major Changes
Reject: Manuscript is flawed.

When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the Editor can make one of the following editorial recommendations:

Publish “As it is”
Consider after Minor Changes
Consider after Major Changes
Reject

If the Editor recommends “Publish “As it is”,” the manuscript is accepted for publication.

If the Editor recommends “Consider after Minor Changes,” the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor changes suggested. The Editor reviews the revised manuscript after the minor changes have been made by the authors. Once the Editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, the manuscript can be accepted.

If the Editor recommends “Consider after Major Changes,” the recommendation is communicated to the authors. The authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the changes recommended by the reviewers and to submit their revised manuscript in a timely manner. Once the revised manuscript is submitted, the Editor can then make an editorial recommendation which can be “Publish “As it is”,” “Consider after Minor Changes,” or “Reject.”

If the Editor recommends rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. Also, if the majority of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate.

The editorial workflow gives the Editors the authority to reject any manuscript because of the inappropriateness of its subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results. The Editor cannot assign himself/herself as an external reviewer of the manuscript. This is to ensure a high-quality, fair, and unbiased peer-review process of every manuscript submitted to the journal, since any manuscript must be recommended by one or more (usually two or more) external reviewers along with the Editor in charge of the manuscript in order for it to be accepted for publication in the journal.

This journal believes that no manuscript should be rejected only on the basis of ‘lack of Novelty’, provided the manuscript is sufficiently robust and technically sound. Too often a journal’s decision to publish a paper is dominated by what the Editor/reviewer think is interesting and will gain greater readership – both of which are subjective judgments and lead to decisions which are frustrating and delay the publication. This journal will rigorously peer-review your submissions and publish all papers that are judged to be technically sound.