Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Our publication ethics and malpractice statement is based on the guidelines for journal editors developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Manuscripts submitted to the journal are evaluated on the basis of their scientific content. Measures are adopted to uphold the standards of publication ethics and to avoid malpractices. We endure so that the submitted papers to this Journal and their work is original and unpublished and is not submitted for publication elsewhere. In addition, authors certify that their research paper is their own original work, that is neither copied or plagiarized, partly or whole from other works and used then the works of others is appropriately cited or quoted.
Duties/Responsibilities of Editors
The Editorial Team comprising the Editorial Board and the Editorial Staff with the Publisher is responsible for taking a decision as to which of the articles submitted to the journal are to be published. The Editors have complete discretion to reject/accept an article. The Editorial Team may confer/deliberate with other reviewers/editors in arriving at its decisions. The evaluation of manuscripts is made on the basis of their scholarly and intellectual content without having regard to the nature of the authors or the institution including gender, race, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. The journal follows a policy of fair play in its editorial evaluation. The editors are expected to exercise caution and ensure that they have no conflict of interest with respect to the articles they accept/reject. The editors and the editorial staff follow strict confidentiality and are required not to disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to any one other than the corresponding author, reviewers and the publisher. Authors are encouraged to correct the errors which are found during the process of review while preserving the anonymity of the reviewers.
Duties/Responsibilities of Reviewers
Editorial decisions are based on peer review. The reviewers are expected to maintain absolute confidentiality with regard to the contents of manuscripts. The reviews are to be conducted objectively and the referees are expected to express their views clearly with supporting reasons. The reviewers should have no conflict of interest with the authors and the subject matter of the research. The reviewers are required to identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any observation or argument which has been previously reported should also be accompanied along with the relevant citation. Similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and any other published paper of which the reviewer may have personal knowledge, may also be brought to the attention of the editors. The information or ideas obtained through peer review are of a privileged nature and must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships with any of the authors or institutions connected to the papers.
Duties/Responsibilities of the Authors
Authors must present accurate original research work followed by objective discussion bringing out significance. The paper should bring out details of the available literature and references. Further all the authors must have significantly contributed to the research. Inaccurate statement constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable. Authors must ensure that the submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere, and if the authors have used the work of others the same has been appropriately cited or quoted. Authors must follow Applicable copyright laws and conventions. Permission must be sought for Copyright materials and reproduced only with permission and acknowledgement of source . Authors must ensure that submitted articles are not sent out to other journal. Submitting the same Ms to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical practice and is not acceptable. Proper acknowledgement of the work of others must always be made. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the paper which is submitted for publication. Other persons who have contributed in certain substantive aspects in the development of the paper should be acknowledged. The corresponding author must endure that all co-authors are included in the paper, and that the latter have seen and approved the final version of the paper before submission for publication. All sources of financial support should also be stated. Upon discovery of any significant error in the published work, it is the responsibility of the authors to promptly notify the editors and cooperate in the retraction or correction of the paper.
Peer Review Policy
The practice of peer review is to ensure that only good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out by all reputable scientific journals. Our reviewers therefore play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of the and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.
Initial manuscript evaluation
The Editors first evaluate all manuscripts. In some circumstances it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to experts for review.
Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will be informed within 2 weeks of receipt.
Type of Peer Review
The single blind review, where the reviewer remains anonymous to the authors throughout the process.
How the reviewer is selected
Reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Our reviewer database contains reviewer contact details together with their subject areas of interest, and this is constantly being updated.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
Is methodologically sound
Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
Correctly references previous relevant work
Reviewers are not expected to correct or copy edit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process. Reviewers are requested to refrain from giving their personal opinion in the “Reviewer blind comments to Author” section of their review on whether or not the paper should be published. Personal opinions can be expressed in the “Reviewer confidential comments to Editor” section.
How long does the peer review process take?
Typically the manuscript will be reviewed within 2-8 weeks. Should the reviewers' reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed a further expert opinion will be sought. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the Editors within 3 weeks and the Editors may request further advice from the reviewers at this time. The Editors may request more than one revision of a manuscript.
A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the reviewers, and may include verbatim comments by the reviewers.
Editor's Decision is final
Reviewers advise the Editors, who are responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.
Special Issues/Conference Proceedings
Special issues and/or conference proceedings may have different peer review procedures involving, for example, Guest Editors, conference organisers or scientific committees. Authors contributing to these projects may receive full details of the peer review process on request from the editorial office.
Becoming a Reviewer for the Journal
If you are not currently a reviewer for the journal but would like to be considered as a reviewer for this Journal, please contact the editorial office and provide your contact details. If your request is approved and you are added to the online reviewer database you will receive a confirmatory email, asking you to add details on your field of expertise, in the format of subject classifications.