Peer-review Policy

All the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be subjected to a double-blinded peer-review process. In this model reviewers, and the authors both do not know the identities of each other. We believe this process is the best way to ensure the fairest reviews and opinions on papers.

Initial Evaluation/Technical Review

The Editor(s) first evaluates all the manuscripts. Manuscripts 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, or not written as per the journal's guidelines. Those that meet the minimum criteria are forwarded to at least 2 experts for review.

Peer-review

• Generally, all the manuscripts are reviewed by a minimum of two suitable external experts in the respective subject area. The reports of all the reviewers will be considered while deciding on acceptance/revision or rejection of a manuscript, but the ultimate responsibility for acceptance or rejection lies with the Editor. Editor-In-Chief makes the final decision.
• EIC can ask one or more advisory board members for their suggestions on a manuscript, before making the final decision.
• Associate editor and review editors provide administrative support to maintain the integrity of the peer-review process.
• In accordance with COPE recommendations on ethical editing for Editors, Editors will assign any submissions they cannot handle (e.g. if they are the author of an article submitted to their own journal) to a member of the Editorial Board or a guest editor.
• The reviewers are expected to maintain the integrity of the double-blind peer-review. The reviewers should read the 'Guidelines to the peer reviewers' before accepting a review invitation. 

Author's suggestion for the reviewer

The authors can suggest the peer reviewers as per the following criteria;

• The suggested reviewers should have higher academic standing in the subject area of the submitted article and the same should be reflected in terms of their publications.
• The suggested reviewers should not be from the authors' own institute or from past affiliations.
• Authors must provide the institutional/academic email addresses of the suggested reviewers.
• Authors must provide the web links to the academic profile pages of the suggested reviewers.
• The journal reserves the right NOT to choose any reviewer from the suggested list.

In case, the authors challenge the editor's negative decision with suitable arguments, the manuscript can be sent to two more reviewers and the final decision will be made based upon their recommendations.