Review Guidelines

Review Guidelines

  1. The research has not previously been published (in whole or in part) or is not expected to be published elsewhere (except in an abstract or as part of a published lecture or scientific thesis); we will consider manuscripts stored on prepress servers such as arXiv or published in institutional repositories. Articles presented at conferences are also included (a significant number of changes and mandatory citation of the conference report must be made before submission to the journal). Submission of manuscripts clearly indicates that the authors give permission to publish the article and call themselves the original editor. The submitting author (correspondent author) is responsible for ensuring that all other co-authors approve the publication of the article and that no copyright disputes are discussed after the publication of the article. The respective authors are also responsible for ensuring that articles from a specific institution are submitted with the approval of the requested institution.
  2. All authors have permission to publish, and once the publication is accepted, it will not be transferred anywhere else, in English or in any other language, without written permission from the copyright owner. The magazine can translate the text of previously published stories into another language. In this case, you must first obtain the consent of the author who published the manuscript and, when submitting it, make it clear that the manuscript has already been published and describe it in an overview.
  3. Authors must ensure that no material submitted as part of the manuscript infringes on existing copyrights or the rights of third parties.
  4. The copyrights of all papers published in this journal are retained by the respective authors as per the ‘Creative Commons Attribution License’ ( The author(s) should be the sole author(s) of the article and should have full authority to enter into the agreement and in granting rights (if any) which are not in breach of any other obligation. The author(s) should ensure the integrity of the paper and related works. Authors should mandatorily ensure that submission of the manuscript to this journal would result in no breach of contract or of confidence or of commitment given to secrecy.
  5. If a submitted study replicates or is very similar to previous work, authors must provide a sound scientific rationale for the submitted work and clearly reference and discuss the existing literature. Submissions that replicate or are derivative of existing work will likely be rejected if authors do not provide adequate justification.
  6. English quality: The language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. It is author’s responsibility to an improve the English quality (if required) by any other third party service.
  7. The research must meet all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.
  8. This publisher 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. The journals will rigorously peer-review your submissions and publish all papers that are judged to be technically sound. Judgments about the importance of any particular paper are then made after publication by the readership (who are the most qualified to determine what is of interest to them).

ONLINE publication model and Reprints

We strongly encourage “ONLINE” publication model. But we also understand that “Reprints” are required by some authors. Reprints may be used to display the potential of the article at interviews, conferences, distribution to colleagues, seminars, other promotional activities, etc. Therefore, if required, reprints can be ordered here (Link). ‘Reprint Charge’ (RC) is separate from Article Processing Charge (APC) or Publication Charge.

Agreement for Authorship

Submission of a paper to this journal indicates that the author(s) have agreed on the content of the paper. One author should be indicated as the corresponding author for all publication related communications. All correspondence and proofs would be sent to the corresponding author, who will be treated as a final representative voice for all authors regarding any decision related to the manuscript unless otherwise requested during submission. This journal would not be responsible for any dispute related to authorship of a submitted paper. Any change in the authorship (such as addition or deletion of author(s) or change in the sequence of author list) should be intimated to the editorial office through a letter signed by all authors before publication of the paper. In absence of any signed letter, approval of ‘Galley proof’ by the corresponding author will work as ‘certificate of final agreement of authorship’. Generally, any change in the authorship after final publication is not entertained and COPE guidelines are followed for any dispute.

Peer Review Mechanism

All journals followed 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.

Advanced OPEN peer review

We have migrated to transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system (Detailed general information is available in this link). High-quality manuscripts are peer-reviewed by minimum two peers in the same field. OPEN peer review system provides the provision to reveal the identities of the authors and reviewers to each other during the review process.

Reviewer suggestion

It is a prerequisite to submit, with the manuscript, the names, addresses and e-mail addresses of 4 potential reviewers (When suggesting peer reviewers, please follow these guidelines to avoid any probable conflict of interest. Reviewer selection is a critical parameter to maintain the high peer review standard of any journal. Many factors are considered during peer reviewer selection like: proof of expertise in terms of published papers in the same area in reputed journals, affiliation, and reputation, specific suggestion, etc. We try to avoid reviewers who are slow, careless or do not provide sufficient justification for their decision (positive or negative). Authors can also identify peers that they want not to review their paper. As far as possible, the editorial team respects requests by authors to exclude reviewers whom they consider to be unsuitable. We also, as much as possible, try to rule out those reviewers who may have an obvious competing interest.

Review process flow

The reviewers’ comments are generally sent to authors within 3 weeks after submission. With the help of the reviewers’ comments, FINAL decision (accepted or accepted with minor revision or accepted with major revision or rejected) will be sent to the corresponding author. Reviewers are asked if they would like to review a revised version of the manuscript. The editorial office may request a re-review regardless of a reviewer’s response in order to ensure a thorough and fair evaluation. Reviewers who may have offered an opinion not in accordance with the FINAL decision should not feel that their recommendation was not duly considered and their service not properly appreciated. Experts often disagree, and it is the job of the editorial team to make a FINAL decision.
Authors are encouraged to submit the revised manuscript within 7-15 days of receipt of reviewer’s comment (in case of minor corrections). But at any case, the revised manuscript submission should not go beyond 8 weeks (only for the cases of major revision which involves additional experiment, analysis etc.), in order to maintain this journal’s mission of the fast publication. Along with corrected manuscript authors need to submit filled ‘review comment form’, any rebuttal to any point raised by reviewers. The Editor of the journal will have exclusive power to take the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of a manuscript during peer review process.

One of the main policies of this journal is ‘fast spreading of scientific findings’ by publishing suitable manuscripts within 6 weeks after submission (except some abnormal cases). Under special circumstance, if the review process takes more time, author(s) will be informed accordingly. The editorial board or referees may re-review manuscripts that are accepted pending revision. Manuscripts with latest and significant findings will be handled with the highest priority so that it could be published within a very short time. The journal is determined to promote integrity in research publication. In case of any suspected misconduct, journal management will reserve the right to re-review any manuscript at any stages before final publication.

General guidelines for Peer Review Process

Post-publication peer review

  1. Journal Web sites provide the ability for users to comment on articles to facilitate community evaluation and discourse around published articles. The comment section is mainly dedicated to promote “Post-publication peer review”. Therefore, all journals strictly follow ‘pre-publication OPEN peer review’ and strongly encourage “Post-publication peer review”. As a result of this “Post-publication peer review”.
  2. Users, who want to comment, are encouraged to register on website. But if anybody doesn’t want to register, we’ll respect the decision. In order to honor ‘free flow of thoughts’ unregistered user are also welcome to comment. Social login is also encouraged.
  3. At the end of every comment, the user must identify author by providing the following information 1. Full Name 2. Name of the Department, University, institute, etc. (This two information will be displayed publicly). We don’t like ‘anonymous’ comments. Comments with ‘forged identity’ will be deleted.

Note: Users must see and agree to our complete Comment Policy