PEER REVIEW POLICY STATEMENT
1. Peer-review process: The manuscripts published in the PDR are subjected to peer review by obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers/experts in the relevant field. All published articles in the Journal are subject to a rigorous peer review process based on initial editor screening and anonymized refereeing by the referee(s). The objectives are to assure research/ review quality, sustain the originality and quality of research work, and filtration poor quality and plagiarized articles. The “peer review process” involves the following − The author(s) writes a research/review manuscript and submits it adhering to/ following the INSTRUCTIONS covered above. The Editor-in-Chief does the initial screening (including plagiarism check) and forwards it to the reviewers. The assigned reviewers review the manuscript according to the guidelines provided and verify the quality of research and the article is returned to the Editor-in-Chief along with a recommendation to reject the article, revise it, or accept it. The editor drafts a decision to be sent to the author with due consultation of members of the editorial board. The article is returned to the author along with the reviewer’s feedback. The editor receives the updated article; it is vetted by the Editor-in-Chief and sends it to the Production Unit for Publication. This whole process is done within 4-6 weeks as given above. The final decision on the “peer review process’ is conveyed to the authors within this time. Recommendations made by the reviewers, with verbatim comments are conveyed in this final decision. Revised manuscripts are usually sought from authors within 2-3 weeks. The Editor-in-Chief solicits further advice from the Section/ Subject Editors / Reviewers, if required, within 1-2 weeks. This process may demand more than one revision of a manuscript. Special Issues / Conference Proceedings will have almost similar peer review procedures with slight modifications. The decision of the Editorial Board is final in all the above submissions and reserves the right in all decisions/ actions.
2. Editorial decisions: These decisions are based on peer review. The reviewers are expected to maintain absolute confidentiality with regard to the contents of manuscripts. The reviews are conducted objectively and the referees are expected to express their views clearly with supporting reasons. The reviewers should have no conflict of interest with the author(s) and the subject matter of the research. The reviewers are required to identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any observation or argument that has been previously reported should also be accompanied along with the relevant citation. Similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and any other published paper of which the reviewer may have personal knowledge may also be brought to the attention of the members of the Editorial Board. The information or ideas obtained through peer review are of a privileged nature and these are kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers are informed not to consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors or institutions connected to the manuscript.
3. Editor’s responsibilities: The Editorial Board of the journal is responsible for making a decision as to which of the manuscripts submitted to the PDR are to be published. The members of the Editorial Board have complete discretion to reject/accept the manuscript. The board may confer/deliberate with other reviewers/members in arriving at its decisions. The evaluation of manuscripts is made on the basis of their scholarly and intellectual content without having regard to the nature of the authors or the institution including gender, race, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. The PDR follows a policy of fair play in its editorial evaluation. The editors are expected to exercise caution and ensure that they have no conflict of interest with respect to the manuscripts they accept/ reject. The members of the Editorial Board follow strict confidentiality and are required not to disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and the Editor-in-Chief. Authors are encouraged to correct the errors that are found during the process of review while preserving the anonymity of the reviewers.
4. Duties/ Responsibilities of Editorial Board/ Reviewers: Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of the Journal. All manuscripts are peer-reviewed following the “peer review process” given above. It is the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief to convey the decision of the “peer review” within 4-6 weeks. Peer Review follows the “peer review process” given above employing single blind review, where the reviewer remains anonymous to the authors throughout the process. Reviewers are matched to the manuscript according to their expertise as advised by the Section/ Subject Editors. The Section/ Subject Editors/ Editor-in-Chief holds a reviewer database containing reviewer contact details together with their subject areas of interest which are constantly updated.
5. Publication process: Article submissions must adhere to the INSTRUCTIONS. Authors are required to peruse the publication ethics/ essential requirements given under the “Ethics and malpractice statement” of the journal. Submissions are acknowledged/ processed with the understanding that authors subscribe to the ethics/ requirements by default. Articles not adhering to the above are liable to be rejected.
Format for submitting reviewer's information : Click Here To Download
Format for submitting manuscript information : Click Here To Download
Manuscript rating by the reviewers : Click Here To Download
The reviewer will do a rating (1= Excellent, 2= Good, 3= Average, 4= Poor) for the below-mentioned heads along with the comments
