Guideline for editors
All manuscripts submitted to the journal are initially assessed by editors of the journal. Only manuscripts evaluated by the editors for potential suitability for publication are sent out for formal peer review, so that manuscripts with a low probability of success can be returned to the authors without delay. The final decision after review is also made by editors. Hence, the editors of the journal are expected to diligently work towards the keeping the quality standard of the publication of the manuscripts.
Editors are expected to critically evaluate the Manuscripts for their compliance with the following criteria:
Rigor of discussion
Impact and significance of results to society
Significance of new knowledge generated
Soundness of methodology formulated/followed
Relevance to the scientific community
Manuscripts are generally reviewed by two appropriate experts selected by the editors. Based on their arguments and recommendations, the decision concerning publication, revision or rejection is taken, sometimes after further consultation with the referees, the editorial advisory board or indeed the authors. Revisions are invited only for manuscripts that have a high probability of acceptance after one major round of revision. Authors may appeal decisions if there is concrete evidence for a misunderstanding or mistake at the editorial or referee level. Appeals are evaluated in depth and without prejudice.
All submitted manuscripts are carefully assessed by the editorial staff for their potential suitability. The abstract or a PDF file of manuscripts may also be sent to Advisory Editorial Board members for further input toward this decision.
To save authors and referees’ time, only those manuscripts judged most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent out for formal review. Manuscripts that are sent for formal review go to two referees. Based on their advice, the editor decides to: accept the manuscript, with or without minor revision; invite the authors to revise the manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached; or reject the manuscript, typically on grounds of insufficient conceptual advance or major technical limitations.
Referees may recommend a course of action in their confidential comments to the editor, but should bear in mind that the editors may have to decide based on conflicting advice. Furthermore, editorial decisions are not a matter of counting votes or numerical rank assessments, but rather are based on an evaluation of the strengths of the arguments raised by each referee and by the authors. The most useful referee reports, therefore, are those that set out clear, substantiated arguments and concrete recommendations for the improvements and experiments necessary to achieve suitability for publication.
Referee selection is critical to the review process, and our choice is based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, and a previous experience with the referee. Referees who have been excluded by the authors, and who have repeatedly provided reports of low quality or delayed reports are not used. Manuscripts will be sent to referees only after having contacted them about the possibility first, and referees are expected to treat even this initial request as confidential
Editors should see whether the manuscript is prepared as provided in General Guidelines for Manuscript Submission. The editors can consider critical points in addition to the guideline provided when evaluating manuscripts
Is the manuscript original?
Is it well written?
Are critical references given?
Does the length of the paper commensurate with the message?
Are all tables, figures, graphs and photographs necessary?
If applicable, is "Material and Methods" section adequately written and referenced?