Standard Editorial Processing and Peer-Review Policy

Manuscripts are submitted for evaluation at the online portal. The authors are provided with password to access and track their article progress. The manuscript ID is generated and sent to the corresponding author. This is followed by preliminary evaluation of the article where the scope of the manuscript and its conformity with the journal mandate is checked. It also involved checking of non-duplicity and originality. If the manuscript is found out of scope or the content is not comprehensible, then it is sent for re-submission provided significant modifications are made. After screening for suitability and determination of the communication type, the Editor-in-Chief sends the manuscript to the Managing Editor. A minimum of two potential and active Peer-Reviewers are identified and the manuscript is subjected for peer-review. Substantial time of about three weeks is allocated for completion of subject expert evaluation of the manuscript content. Based on the review comments, suggestions and recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the handling Editor and Reviewers arrive at a final decision (Accept/Re-review/Minor revision/Major revision/rejection) and the corresponding author is duly notified. Accepted articles are processed for generation of author proof followed by online web hoisting.

Types of decision include 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