GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS & EDITORS

FOR REVIEWERS

Before reviewing an article, reviewers should ensure that the article they are supposed to evaluate lies within their area of expertise. They should ensure that there’s no conflict of interest and they have time to complete the peer review process within the given time frame.

In case of any conflict of interest, reviewers should inform the editors immediately. If more than 2 weeks are required to complete the evaluation, they should notify the editor in advance.

Reviewers should provide an unbiased report. Their evaluation should be based on the scholastic standards only. Detailed comments should be included in their reports so that the author can understand the reasons for either not accepting his/her article or sending it back for revision. Thorough comments also make it easier for the editor to take his/her final decision.

Reviewers should abstain from sharing details of the articles with third parties as this is considered as a publishing malpractice. Permission must be sought from the respective editor if an external referee’s expertise is required for reviewing process.

As per our policy, we conduct a single-blind reviewing method where the referee remains anonymous throughout the process but the author’s name and affiliation appear in the paper.

Below mentioned are some guidelines to help the referees in their evaluation:

  1. Analyze the article based on the validity and quality of the literature. The literature and presentation of the article should be up to the journal’s policies and standards.
  2. The title should be according the contents of the article.
  3. Evaluate the originality and scientific accuracy of the paper.
  4. Reviewers should make sure that the abstract, introduction, methodology, results and conclusions have been appropriately dealt by the author. The data under these headings should be relevant, accurate and clearly stated.
  5. Ensure that enough information is present for the study to be replicated.
  6. The data analyses should fully support the claims. If they do not, the reviewers should explicitly mention the missing evidences and information in their report.
  7. Special attention should be given to the type of data collected, statistics, figures, graphs, pictures and tables etc. They should be easily interpreted, authentic and reliable.
  8. Check for proper citations and referencing.
  9. Notify the editor of plagiarism or any other ethical issues.

FOR EDITORS

Editors are responsible for drafting the manuscripts, conducting the peer review process and checking the final manuscript for any technical or grammatical errors to ensure quick and accurate publications.

They should ensure that all the articles follow the publication and editorial policies of Zeal Press. Editors can reject the manuscript if plagiarism is detected, ethical codes are violated or if the article is improper for the journal.

When managing the peer-review process, they should select appropriate referees whose qualifications and area of expertise should match the article or the topic concerned. Preferably 3 but at least 2 referees should be selected for this process, within a week.

It’s the editor’s responsibility to make the final decision of accepting, rejecting or sending the article back to author for revision. They should base their decisions on suggestions and comments of the reviewers. Their decisions should be well-justified and clearly explained for better understanding of the author, especially if a manuscript is not accepted for publishing. They should also respond to all the queries of authors regarding this matter.

Manuscripts sent back for revision are returned to the same editors. It’s to be noted that the revised versions shouldn’t be accepted unless they meet our demands and quality standards. Usually the authors are given one chance for revision but in some cases the Editor-in-Chief or the editors can make an exception due to the paper being rare, of very high quality, or exceptionally interesting for the readers and allow a third round of review.