Editor's Guidelines

This journal adopts a double-blind review where each submitted manuscript will be reviewed by at least two potential reviewers where both the reviewer(s) and author(s) information are not revealed to each other throughout the review process. The corresponding author(s) shall recommend two expert reviewers in their fields mentioned in their cover letter during the manuscript submission. The authors shall ensure that the recommended expert reviewers are unaware of their submission to this journal or they have not recently collaborated with any of the authors. Authors are not permitted to recommend reviewers from the same institution from any of the authors listed in the manuscript. Authors can also recommend if any reviewers are opposed to review their manuscript.

If the author is an editor or an editorial board member, they will not be permitted to make decisions regarding their manuscripts submitted to the journal. In such a situation to prevent conflict of interest, another editorial board member who is not involved as the author will be responsible for the review process and decision making.

To facilitate the double-blind review, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared and submitted as two separate files. Firstly, the title page document containing the author(s) details, and secondly the blinded manuscript with no author details. The title page shall include the title, author(s) name(s) and affiliation(s), and a complete address of the corresponding author which includes his/her telephone and e-mail address, funding sources, acknowledgments, and conflict of interest statement.

The editor or editor-nominated editorial board does an initial review of the submitted manuscript to determine whether it complies with the journal’s scope and guidelines. It will be rejected if the authors failed to meet the journal requirements or request for revision before sending it to the reviewer if any minor corrections are required. The editorial desk rejection/return shall be communicated within approximately 14 days after submission.

The review process begins once the editor receives approval from the editorial board; the suitable reviewers (~2-4) capable of assessing the scientific merit of the manuscript will be identified and sent to collect their feedback. The expert reviewers will be selected based on the geopolitical approach (national and international) based on the topic discussed in the manuscript. The editor shall appoint qualified reviewers or identify them through internet surfing on websites. The editor shall accept as such or accept after minor modifications or reject the manuscript based on the feedback given by the reviewers. The editor's decision based on the feedback from reviewers shall be communicated within approximately 56 days after initial submission. The editor shall appoint a reviewer at his discretion if the nominated reviewers didn’t respond or fail to submit the feedback to the manuscript within the stipulated time.

To facilitate the double-blind review, the authors shall ensure before submitting the blinded manuscript whether the blinded manuscript does not contain any names and affiliations mentioned in any part including file names of the document.  If the authors wish to self-cite their previously published work they shall use the third person to refer to their work. For example, write “Kesavan and Danish (2020) have experimented” rather than “we/the authors have previously experimented (Kesavan and Danish, 2020)”. The title page and cover letter will not be shared with reviewers, hence authors are requested to ensure that they do not inadvertently include or hide any identifying information in any other files that will be shared with the reviewers.

Authors have the right to appeal a rejection decision to the editor stating valid reasons. In such a case, the editor allows resubmission of the revised manuscript and sends it to a third reviewer preferably an editorial board member, along with the earlier assigned reviewer reports. The appeal shall result in either success or failure leading to invited resubmission or rejection respectively. The editor's decision will be made based on the third reviewer's reports.