Peer Review Policy

The article is sent to referees:

Each paper submitted for publication is sent to 2 independent referees for peer review. They are selected on following basis:

  • Expertise in one or more areas of paper
  • No conflicts of interest
  • Able to think clearly and logically
  • Able to write a good critique
  • Accurate
  • Reliable in returning reviews
  • Able to do the review in the allotted time-frame

Referees are expected to respond to the editor’s request for advice within a limited period of time (15 days), which is clearly stated by the editor. A comment sheet is also provided to him for seeking his advice on all aspects of the article. He is advised to return the script immediately without comments if it is not possible for him to attend to a manuscript within this period, so that the editor can send it to another referee without further delay.

Comments from the referee are received by the editor

  • If the reports of both referees disagree with regard to the suitability of the paper for publication, advice of a third referee is sought.
  • Comments received from both referees: Article is sent to author for modification along with comments of referees. At this stage editor completes the preliminary editing. It includes checking in-house style (presentation of title, affiliations, present address, abstract, scientific nomenclature, text and reference presentation).
  • Comments not received from both referees: If comments are not received from both referees, reminder is sent to them.

Reminder to referee from whom the comments not received:

  • If comments are not received from one referee, reminder is sent to him.
  • Comments not received from one referee: Reminder is sent to the referee who is not responding.
  • Reminder is sent to the referee who is not responding to editor’s request. However if his reply is not coming in a stipulated time, editor takes suitable action on the basis of comments received from one referee.
  • In case of no reply from both the referees the article is sent to a new referee.
  • Rejection of the article on the basis of comments of referees: The article is rejected on the basis of comments of referee/referees. The author is informed accordingly.
  • Author does not agree with the adverse comments of the referee or in the meantime suitable comments are received from Second referee: Editor’s decision independently or in consultation with editorial board, is final. Editor may ask the first referee or a third referee to go through the comments of first referee, reply of author to comments of referee and /or contradictory comments of second referee.
  • Favorable comments are received from second referee after the modification: Input of the second referee is incorporated in modified article. Author is contacted if referee asks for inclusion of more information in the form of table, figs or references.
  • Adverse comments received from the second referee at any stage: Author is informed of the adverse comments from second referee and action is stalled (even at proof stage) till final decision.
  • Editor’s decision independently or in consultation with editorial board, is final. Acceptance of the article is sent to author.