Editor Guidelines
Editorial Board Members’ Responsibilities
1. Editors decide which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, and must comply with the policy guidelines provided by the publisher related to reviewing and editorial policy;
2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication;
3. Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit;
4. Peer review assists the editors in making editorial decisions. Editors should publish only peer reviewed accepted articles;
5. Editors should have a clear picture of a research's funding sources;
6. Editors must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the written consent of the author.
7. Editors must closely monitor the journal for ensuring the fairness, timeliness, thoroughness, and transparency of the process.
Editors’ Standard Editorial Processing
Submission of the manuscript by the corresponding author.
Registration of the manuscript details and generation of the manuscript number.
Verification of compliance with the scope of the Journal.
Preliminary quality evaluation of the article. Plagiarism check and originality.
Screening for potential and active reviewers and assignment to the reviewers.
The Managing Editor screens for at least 2 independent reviewers.
Securing the review comments within 30 days.
Upon the receipt of reviewer comments in the system, the Managing Editor can either make a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviews and his/her own opinion, or start a discussion among the reviewers if there is some disagreement. The discussion involves all reviewers, the Managing Editor and the Editor-in-Chief.
Based on the review comments, final decision (Accept/Re-review/Minor revision/Major revision/rejection) is taken in consultation with the editorial board and editor in chief. Final disposition of the manuscript would be any one of the following:
Accepted: Can be published as it is for the time being with minor typos or artifacts.
Accept with minor revision: The manuscript will have to be slightly revised following the reviewers' comments, but there will not be any additional round of review. The Action Editor and/or the Editor in Chief are responsible for verifying the implementation of modifications.
Revise and resubmit: It is agreed that the topic is worth publishing, but the paper requires major revisions before it can actually be published. The revised paper will not be considered as a completely new submission, though: if a revised version is sent within 6 months, it will most probably be handled by the same Action Editor.
Rejected: The paper is out of scope, or does not contain any substantial contribution, or may be simply too difficult to understand. In any case, the same work should not be resubmitted without substantial improvisation.
After an agreed decision has been reached, the authors are notified by the Editor-in-Chief or the Managing Editor.
Revision of the manuscript, application of style sheet, assignment of the DOI number within 7 days.
Copy editing of the manuscript and generation of the Author-proof.
Generation of the galley proof and approval by the author(s).
Hosting on the website with volume and issue number and year of publication.
Archiving of the article in the database.
Editor or any Editorial staff should maintain confidentiality related to the submitted manuscript, names and affiliations of the author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate depending on the need and stage of processing.