Review Process

The review process in a research journal is a critical step that ensures the quality, validity, and credibility of published scholarly articles

Double Blind-Peer Review

The Double-blind peer review is a widely recognized and rigorous process used in academia and scholarly publishing to evaluate the quality and validity of research articles, conference papers, and other academic works before they are accepted for publication. This process involves concealing the identities of both the authors and the reviewers from each other, aiming to eliminate potential biases and ensure a fair and impartial evaluation.

The journal considers this phase as one of the most crucial and critical factors towards maintaining the quality and ethical standards of research, therefore the process has been designed by keeping the established standard procedures opted by some of the world-renowned journals.

This phase aims to improve the quality of the journal through these following criteria’s;

• Fairness: It reduces potential biases based on the authors' reputation, affiliations, or other identifying factors, ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated solely on their merits.
• Quality Control: The review process maintains a high standard of scholarly work by subjecting submissions to critical evaluation by experts in the field.
• Anonymity: It allows reviewers to provide honest and candid feedback without fear of repercussions or favouritism.
• Objectivity: The focus remains on the quality of the research rather than the personalities or affiliations of the authors.

Flow of the Manuscripts and Process of Peer-review

• Submission: An author submits their manuscript to a journal or conference for consideration.
• Initial Screening: The editor or program chair assesses the submission for its general fit with the journal or conference's scope and guidelines.
• Reviewer Assignment: The editor or program chair selects expert reviewers in the field to evaluate the manuscript's content.
• Blind Review: Both the author(s) and the reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process. Authors are instructed to remove any identifying information from their manuscript, such as their names, affiliations, or acknowledgments.
• Peer Review: Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript's quality, originality, methodology, clarity, and significance. They provide constructive feedback, comments, and recommendations for improvement.
• Initial Decision Making: Based on the reviewers' feedback, the editor or program chair makes a decision about the manuscript's acceptance, rejection, or the need for revisions. The author(s) receive the reviewers' comments without knowing their identities.
• Revision and Resubmission (if necessary): If revisions are required, the author(s) make the necessary changes and resubmit the revised manuscript. Reviewers then assess the revisions to ensure they address their concerns.
• Final Decision: Once the manuscript meets the journal or conference's standards, it is either accepted for publication or presented at the conference.

  Stages of Manuscript Flow

  Desk Review

  • Guidelines and Scope
  • Associate Editor (Publication)

  Peer Review

  • Review Guideline
  • 3 Reviewers

  Assesment

  • First Post Review Decision
  • Editor

  Communication

  • Decision
  • Expected Changes/Compliance
  • Assistant Editor (Publication)

Peer Review Process

Peer review is a fundamental process in the world of academic and scientific research. It serves as a quality control mechanism to evaluate the validity, credibility, and quality of research articles, papers, and proposals before they are published or funded. It involves the following key elements:

• Selection of Reviewers: Experts in the relevant field, typically fellow researchers or academics, are selected as reviewers. They are chosen based on their expertise, qualifications, and experience to ensure they can provide valuable insights into the research under review.
• Confidential Evaluation: Peer review is conducted anonymously to encourage impartiality. Reviewers assess the research manuscript or proposal without knowing the identity of the author(s), and authors usually do not know the identity of the reviewers.
• Critical Assessment: Reviewers critically evaluate various aspects of the research, including its methodology, data analysis, results, conclusions, and overall contribution to the field. They check for accuracy, validity, and relevance.
• Feedback and Recommendations: Reviewers provide constructive feedback, highlighting strengths and weaknesses of the work. They may recommend revisions or improvements to enhance the quality of the research.
• Editorial Decision: Based on the reviewers' assessments and recommendations, the editor of the journal or the funding agency makes a decision regarding the research work. This decision can include acceptance, rejection, or a request for revisions.
• Improving Research Quality: Peer review plays a crucial role in maintaining the high standards of research. It helps identify errors, biases, or methodological flaws and ensures that only well-founded and reliable research is published or funded.
• Credibility and Trust: Published research that has undergone rigorous peer review is considered more credible and trustworthy by the scientific and academic community. It helps prevent the dissemination of unreliable or misleading information.
• Promoting Scientific Discourse: Peer-reviewed publications stimulate scientific discourse and knowledge exchange. Researchers engage in discussions, cite peer-reviewed work, and build upon existing knowledge.
• Publication Standards: Peer-reviewed journals adhere to publication standards and ethical guidelines, such as plagiarism checks, data sharing, and disclosure of conflicts of interest, which further enhance research integrity.
• Continuous Improvement: Peer review is an evolving process. Journals and funding agencies continually refine their peer review procedures to adapt to changing research practices and ethical considerations.

Selection of a Reviewer

Any individual with an illustrations academic career with experience of academic publication can be a reviewer. Following are the criteria’s for becoming a reviewer;

• Expertise in the Field: Reviewers should have expertise and a strong background in the specific subject area relevant to the manuscript under review. They should possess knowledge of current trends, theories, methodologies, and best practices within their domain of expertise.
• Publication Record: Reviewers with a track record of publishing high-quality research articles in reputable journals are preferred. Their own scholarly contributions should demonstrate their understanding of rigorous research methods, critical analysis, and scholarly communication.
• Relevance to Manuscript Content: Reviewers should be selected based on their relevance to the content of the manuscript. They should have experience and knowledge in the specific subfield, topic, or research area covered by the manuscript to provide informed and insightful feedback.
• Professional Integrity: Reviewers should demonstrate professionalism, ethical conduct, and impartiality throughout the review process. They should avoid conflicts of interest, maintain confidentiality, and provide objective evaluations based on the merit of the manuscript.
• Timeliness and Availability: Reviewers should be able to commit to the review timeline provided by the journal. They should be responsive, punctual, and able to dedicate sufficient time to thoroughly evaluate the manuscript and provide timely feedback to the editorial team.
• Communication Skills: Reviewers should possess excellent communication skills, both in written feedback and in interpersonal interactions with authors and editors. They should be able to articulate their critiques, suggestions, and recommendations clearly, constructively, and professionally.
• Recognition and Reputation: Reviewers with a recognized reputation in the academic community, such as being affiliated with reputable institutions, serving on editorial boards, or receiving accolades for their contributions, can add credibility and expertise to the review process.
• Diversity and Inclusivity: The journal should strive for diversity and inclusivity in selecting reviewers, considering factors such as gender, geographic location, cultural background, and academic career stage. This ensures a range of perspectives and expertise in evaluating manuscripts.
• Previous Reviewer Performance: The editorial team may consider feedback and evaluations from previous review processes to assess a reviewer's performance, reliability, thoroughness, and effectiveness in providing constructive feedback that enhances manuscript quality.
• Continuous Professional Development: Reviewers who engage in ongoing professional development, such as attending workshops, conferences, or training sessions related to peer review, research ethics, and scholarly publishing, demonstrate a commitment to improving their reviewing skills and knowledge.

Duration of an initial peer-review cycle

The full evaluation procedure can take anywhere between 4 and 10 weeks. If the reviewers' comments conflict, or if the report is delayed, or a reviewer withdrew from the process in between an extra expert or additional reviewer can be appointed to complete the process.

In case of revisions the revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation if necessary or may be sent for a fresh round of peer-review, based on the availability and willingness of the original reviewer.

The Editor-in Chief or Managing Editors (Publication) can change the decision of the reviewers in any circumstance but holds the right to call for additional revision, if necessary.

Roles and Responsibilities of a Reviewer

The reviewers in research journals play a pivotal role in upholding the quality and integrity of published research. Their responsibilities include expert evaluation, maintaining confidentiality, providing constructive feedback, and ensuring ethical considerations are addressed. The thorough and impartial assessment conducted by reviewers contributes to the credibility and advancement of scientific knowledge.

• Expert Assessment: Reviewers are experts in their respective fields. Their primary responsibility is to critically assess the submitted manuscript's quality, relevance, and contribution to the field of study.
• Confidentiality: Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality. They should not disclose any information about the manuscript they are reviewing or the review process itself. This ensures a fair and unbiased evaluation.
• Impartiality: Reviewers should approach the manuscript with objectivity and impartiality. Personal biases or conflicts of interest that may affect their judgment should be disclosed to the journal editor.
• Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews in a timely manner, typically within the journal's specified timeframe. This ensures that the editorial process can proceed efficiently.
• Detailed Evaluation: Reviewers evaluate various aspects of the manuscript, including the research design, methodology, data analysis, results, and conclusions. They should provide detailed comments and constructive feedback.
• Identification of Flaws: Reviewers should identify any flaws or weaknesses in the manuscript, including errors in methodology, data analysis, or interpretation. They should also check for ethical considerations, such as plagiarism or conflicts of interest.
• Recommendations: Reviewers make recommendations to the journal editor based on their assessment. Recommendations may include acceptance, revision with specific suggestions for improvement, or rejection with clear justifications.
• Communication with Editors: Reviewers communicate with the journal editor to convey their recommendations and provide feedback. They should justify their decisions and be prepared to engage in discussions with the editor.
• Ethical Considerations: Reviewers should be vigilant about ethical issues, such as data fabrication, plagiarism, or inappropriate authorship. If such issues are suspected, they should bring them to the editor's attention.
• Professionalism: Reviewers should conduct themselves professionally and courteously when interacting with authors and editors. Constructive criticism and respectful communication are essential.
• Continual Improvement: Reviewers are encouraged to provide guidance to authors to help improve the quality of the manuscript. Their feedback should facilitate the author's understanding of how to enhance their work.
• Staying Informed: Reviewers should stay updated with the latest developments in their field to ensure they provide relevant and current insights during the review process.
• Publication Standards: Reviewers should ensure that the manuscript adheres to the journal's publication standards, including proper formatting, citations, and adherence to ethical guidelines.

Journal Ethical Policy

Simultaneous Submissions in the System

According to the ethical policy of this journal Simultaneous Submission of research papers, refers to submitting the same research manuscript to multiple journals or conferences at the same time. Such action raises several important ethical considerations within the academic community. If any manuscript is found to be within the scope of simultaneous submission or found to be published as where while being under review with this journal. Serious action will be taken against such author/s.

If a manuscript is rejected following the peer review, an author can make the appropriate revisions and either submit it for new consideration to the same journal or consider submitting it to another related journal.

Data Fragmentation

The journal describes data fragmentation as a publication strategy in which the author/s create many little portions of a larger study and publish them in multiple places. The journal strongly discourages such behaviour because this type of research adds no value to the academic and research communities. The journal prefers quality work over quantity.

Research Relevancy

This Journal describes Research Relevance as significance and importance of a research study in addressing specific questions, problems, or issues within a particular field or area of study. It is a critical aspect of the research process and plays a fundamental role in determining the value and impact of the research findings

Data Availability and Privacy

Authors may be expected to share the underlying source data used to support their work in order to meet the publication's open data standards, particularly in the case of Open Access journals. In such circumstances, writers should be willing to grant public access to such data or explain why such material cannot be publically presented (for example, ethical or security concerns). In such circumstances, authors should offer an explanation of the data's limits as well as the necessary information for a reader to apply to access the data.

If the author cannot produce the data through any public depository than they are required submit the declaration form on data authenticity and originality, along with data availability through consent and request.

Standards of Reporting

Standards of reporting guidelines should be utilized to ensure transparency and reproducibility of research

Corrections and Retractions

The Corrections and Retractions Policy in a journal plays a pivotal role in maintaining the integrity, credibility, and ethical standards of published content. It ensures accuracy and quality by promptly addressing errors, inaccuracies, or omissions in articles, thus preserving scholarly integrity and protecting readers and researchers from relying on incorrect information. By upholding ethical conduct, addressing concerns and disputes transparently, and educating authors and reviewers on research standards, the policy builds trust, enhances the journal's reputation, and fosters transparency and accountability in scholarly publishing. Additionally, it ensures legal compliance, protects intellectual property rights, and demonstrates a commitment to maintaining the highest standards of accuracy and reliability in scholarly communication.

Corrections Policy

• Objective: The corrections policy aims to address errors, inaccuracies, or omissions identified in published articles promptly and transparently to maintain the integrity and accuracy of scholarly content.
• Types of Corrections: Corrections may include minor errors such as typographical errors, factual inaccuracies, calculation mistakes, or attribution issues that do not significantly affect the overall conclusions or interpretations of the article.
• Initiating Corrections: Corrections can be initiated by authors, readers, reviewers, or editorial staff who identify the need for correction. Authors are encouraged to notify the journal's editorial office promptly upon discovering errors in their published work.
• Correction Process: Upon receiving a request for correction, the editorial team evaluates the nature and impact of the error. If the error is deemed significant and requires correction, a correction notice is issued and published alongside the original article. The correction notice clearly identifies the error, provides the corrected information, and explains the reason for the correction.
• Notification: The correction notice is prominently displayed on the journal's website, linked to the original article, and indexed to ensure visibility and accessibility to readers. The notice may also be communicated through relevant indexing services, databases, and archival platforms.

Retractions Policy

• Objective: The retractions policy is designed to address serious ethical issues, research misconduct, or irretrievable errors that significantly impact the credibility, validity, or ethical standards of a published article.
• Grounds for Retractions: Retractions may be necessary in cases of plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, ethical violations, duplicate publication, authorship disputes, or findings that are later proven to be invalid or unreliable.
• Initiating Retractions: Retractions can be initiated by authors, readers, reviewers, or editorial staff who identify serious concerns regarding the integrity or validity of a published article. Authors are encouraged to cooperate with the journal's investigation and provide relevant documentation or evidence.
• Retraction Process: Upon receiving a request or identifying grounds for retraction, the editorial team conducts a thorough investigation to verify the concerns raised. If the concerns are substantiated and warrant retraction, a retraction notice is issued and published alongside the original article. The retraction notice clearly explains the reason for retraction, provides a summary of the issues identified, and indicates any corrective actions taken.
• Notification: The retraction notice is prominently displayed on the journal's website, linked to the original article, and communicated to relevant indexing services, databases, and archival platforms. The retracted article is marked as "retracted" to alert readers to the retraction status.

Editorial Discretion and Ethics Committee Involvement

The journal’s Ethics Committee is constituted of Editor, Co-Editor, members of advisory board and experts in the field. The board assist the journal management in formulating ethical policies and maintaining ethical standards.

• The journal's Ethics Committee plays a crucial role in assessing and determining the need for corrections or retractions.
• Decisions regarding corrections or retractions are made based on established ethical guidelines, transparency principles, and best practices in scholarly publishing.
• Authors, reviewers, readers, and stakeholders are informed of corrections or retractions as per established communication protocols to maintain transparency and accountability.

Appeals and Corrections Retention

• Authors have the right to appeal decisions regarding corrections or retractions, providing additional evidence or explanations for consideration.
• Corrected articles retain their original publication date and citation details, with a clear indication of the correction notice linked to the article.
• Retracted articles are permanently marked as retracted, with the retraction notice clearly visible and accessible to readers.

Plagiarism Policy

A plagiarism policy is critically important for any journal as it serves multiple crucial functions. Firstly, it upholds the integrity of academic research by establishing clear guidelines that authors, reviewers, and contributors must follow to avoid using others' work without proper attribution. Secondly, it protects intellectual property rights by discouraging unauthorized use of copyrighted material and ensuring that all published articles are original and innovative. Thirdly, it maintains the credibility of the journal by demonstrating a commitment to ethical publishing practices, rigorous peer review, and transparency. Fourthly, it educates and raises awareness among stakeholders about plagiarism, proper citation practices, and responsible scholarship, fostering a culture of academic honesty and integrity. Ultimately, a robust plagiarism policy not only safeguards against legal and ethical consequences but also promotes fairness, accountability, and quality in scholarly publishing, benefiting the entire academic community. Following are the essential elements of the policy:

Definition of Plagiarism: Plagiarism is the act of using someone else's words, ideas, research findings, or intellectual property without proper attribution or permission. It includes verbatim copying, paraphrasing, or rephrasing of text, data, images, or any other form of content without giving credit to the original source.

Zero Tolerance Policy: The proposed journal maintains a zero tolerance policy towards plagiarism in all its forms. Authors, reviewers, and contributors are expected to uphold the highest ethical standards and avoid any form of plagiarism or academic misconduct.

Plagiarism Detection: The journal utilizes plagiarism detection software and tools to screen submitted manuscripts for potential instances of plagiarism. Authors are required to submit original work that has not been previously published or submitted elsewhere.

Author Responsibilities: Authors are responsible for ensuring that all content in their manuscripts is original, properly cited, and does not infringe upon the intellectual property rights of others. Proper attribution, citation, and referencing of sources must be provided for any borrowed content or ideas.

Types of Plagiarism: The journal's plagiarism policy covers various types of plagiarism, including:

Verbatim plagiarism: Directly copying text from another source without quotation marks or proper citation.

Paraphrasing plagiarism: Rewriting someone else's ideas or text without providing appropriate credit.

Self-plagiarism: Reproducing one's own previously published work without acknowledgment or permission.

Conceptual plagiarism: Using someone else's ideas, theories, or research findings without acknowledgment or citation.

Plagiarism Investigation: In cases where plagiarism is suspected or reported, the journal's editorial team conducts a thorough investigation. This may involve comparing the submitted manuscript with known sources, analyzing text similarities, and verifying the originality of content.

Actions Against Plagiarism: If plagiarism is confirmed, the journal takes appropriate actions, which may include:

Rejection of the manuscript: Manuscripts with significant instances of plagiarism are rejected outright and not considered for publication.

Retraction of published articles: If plagiarism is detected in a published article, the journal may retract the article and issue a retraction notice to alert readers.

Blacklisting: Authors found guilty of plagiarism may be blacklisted from submitting to the journal in the future, and their institutions or employers may be notified.