1-All submitted manuscripts are subject to strict blind peer-review process. During this review process identity of both the authors and reviewers are kept hidden to ensure an unbiased evaluation. 2. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language. No manuscript will 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. 3. 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. It is the job of the editorial team to make a FINAL decision. 4. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted. 5. Rejected papers are given the opportunity for a formal appeal. Appeal requests should be addressed to the Chief Editor of the journal. Authors should provide detailed reasons for the appeal and point-by-point responses to the Reviewers' and/or Editor's comments. If an appeal is rejected, further appeals of the decision will not be considered and the paper may not be resubmitted. 6. Articles may be rejected without review if the Editor considers the article obviously not suitable for publication (Example: out of scope of the journal or bad language). 7. The editors of the journal are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. 8. The Chief Editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding copyright infringement and plagiarism. 9. The Chief Editor confers with the journal's editorial board or reviewers in making this decision. 10. The reviewers evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. 11. The editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. 12. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments; they are encouraged to be honest. It is expected that the reviewers should suggest the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to make it acceptable. Comments of the reviewers should be sufficiently informative and helpful to reach an Editorial decision. We strongly advise that a negative review should also explain the weaknesses of any manuscript, so that the concerned authors can understand the basis of rejection and he/she can improve the manuscript based on those comments. 13. Peer review assists the Chief Editor in making editorial decisions. Additionally, we believe that one of the main objectives of the peer review system is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. 14. Manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents. 15. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention for any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge. 16. Authors of contributions and studies research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. 17. Sufficient details of the methods/process should be provided inside the manuscript so that another researcher is able to reproduce the experiments described. Inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. 18. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarized manuscripts would not be considered for publication. If plagiarism is found in any published paper after internal investigation, a letter would be immediately sent to all the authors. 19. Authors should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. 20. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. 21. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Submission of a paper to this journal indicates that the author(s) have agreed to 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. Any change in the authorship (such as the addition or deletion of author(s) or change in the sequence of the 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 a 'certificate of final agreement of authorship'. 22. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. 23. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the Chief Editor to cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. 24. The study has not been published (partly or as a whole) before or is not under consideration for publication elsewhere (except as an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis). We will also consider work that has been presented at conferences. 25. It is compulsory for the authors to ensure that no material submitted as part of a manuscript infringes existing copyrights or the rights of a third party. 26. The research must meet all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity. Studies on patients or volunteers require ethics committee approval and informed consent, which should be documented in the paper. 27. Disclosure and conflicts of interest: all submissions must include disclosure of all relationships that could be viewed as presenting a potential conflict of interest. 28. Hazards and human or animal subjects: statements of compliance are required if the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, or if it involves the use of animal or human subjects. 29. The journal is following (Cope) Instructions. |