Log in

Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

The articles submitted are assessed initially by the Joint Editors and a primary decision made regarding further processing.

Once such a decision is made, the article would be reviewed anonymously in a double blind fashion by two reviewers from the Editorial Board and an External Reviewer from the Panel of Reviewers.

When deemed necessary, the article would be sent to a separate Specialist Reviewer.

If and when there is no agreement among the reviewers, the manuscript would be sent to another independent reviewer. 

The reviewers' comments and recommendations are discussed at the monthly Editorial Board Meetings. The final decision regarding acceptance rests with the two Joint Editors.

We aim to complete the peer review process and arrive at a publication decision within three months. However, this timeline depends on the exact date of the month in which the manuscript is submitted (the editorial Board Meetings are held on the third Friday of each month), the response of the peer reviewers, the promptness with which queries are addressed by the author/s and the necessity for revisions in the manuscript.

Revisions and re-submission following peer review

Following the peer review process, if any revisions are needed prior to acceptance for publication, the Joint Editors would write to the author/s suggesting that the manuscript be appropriately amended and resubmitted directly to the Joint Editor. The author/s would be given a period of a month (four weeks) to resubmit the revised article. If there is no response from the authors, a reminder will be sent giving the author another fortnight (two weeks) to submit the revised arricle. If there is no response by that deadline, the article will be rejected and archived.

For a complete description of the processes involved, please refer to the Journal Policies on Publication Ethics and Malpractices under the Research Integrity Section.

Section Policies