Peer -Review Policy and Process
Peer Review Policy
According to the Peer Review policy of the Journal, every manuscript that is submitted for consideration for publication undergoes a strict, double-blind peer-review process that ensures fair, unbiased scrutiny of the author’s work. During, the double-blind peer review, neither author nor the reviewer selected by IJISR knows each other during the review process. The reviewer is requested to make a fair and objective review of all the aspects expected of a research manuscript like, content, originality, the relevance of the findings, data analysis and interpretation, etc., offering constructive criticism and useful suggestions and recommendations. English language, grammatical errors, etc., should also be considered by the reviewer for the suitability of the manuscript.
Peer Review Process
Our Chief Editor/Managing Editor scrutinizes (Peer Review - First screening) of IJLPR of all submitted documents like manuscripts, cover letters, texts, figures like charts, tables and annexures submitted for publication in the Journal. This first screening includes ensure of reference style, within the scope of the journal, basic science relevance, basic structure viz: abstract, keyword, introduction etc. If the need for any changes is realized, authors are intimated about the requirements for the change. After relevant changes are made the authors have to resubmit the required documents. The assistant editor also checks for the content and concept of the manuscript and gives his comment. If the manuscript does not meet the required standard or if it is out of the scope of the IJISR, it will be rejected.
If the manuscript passes those above screening, provisional acceptance would be sent and the authors would be asked to submit a vouching certificate or written declaration by a suitable doctorate relevant to the subject of the manuscript that the manuscript is an original work of the author and fit for the international publication and that doctorate takes personal responsibility for the originality and truth of the research work. This provisional acceptance does not guarantee complete acceptance as the comments from the following peer review need to be rectified by the author.
Following this, the manuscript would be subjected to a Double-Blind peer review process. Qualified reviewers (Preferably Doctorates and sufficient experienced individuals either in research or academic or service) in the respective and relevant field of the manuscript would be selected for the peer review. About 3 to 4 reviewers (Inclusive of an advisory editorial board member) would be selected and sent an invitation to review the manuscript. They can decline an offer if there is any conflict of interest with regard to the subject matter of the manuscript or for other reasons. On accepting they will be sent the manuscripts for review. They are automatically bound by the policy of the Journal to strict confidentiality of their assignment and of the identities of the authors. The manuscript would be sent to them for peer review and also scrutinized for grammar, style and punctuation.
Reviewers are expected to be prompt in fulfilling all the requirements to complete their assignments. They must cooperate with the Editorial office in sticking to deadlines. They have to record their comments and suggestions in the given space in the manuscript. The reviewer is requested to make a fair and objective review of all the aspects expected of a research manuscript like, content, originality, the relevance of the findings, data analysis and interpretation etc, offering constructive criticism and useful suggestions and recommendations. English language, grammatical errors etc should also be considered by the reviewer for the suitability of the manuscript.
In order to facilitate an unbiased fair review of the manuscript, we follow a double-blind peer review process where the identities of the peer reviewers and the authors are not disclosed to each other. Strict confidentiality is maintained in this regard until the manuscript is accepted and published. Only after publishing the manuscript, the list of reviewers would be published. The reviewer comments are sent to the author for revision or rectification and would be expected to be sent back to the reviewer. This takes place until the reviewer gives approval for the manuscript (with or without a condition statement). Then the manuscript would be sent to the editor-in-chief/managing editor (Second screening) with the reviewer comments (with conditions (if any)) and author rectification and it is at this stage the final acceptance or rejection of the manuscript is decided, based on the comments of the peer review.
On final acceptance of the manuscript, acceptance intimation would be sent to the author without much delay, but on rejection, the editor-in-chief can decide to send the manuscript to another 2 reviewers (Reviewer 4 and reviewer 5) and if both accept, the manuscript would be accepted for publication, but if both or either one of them rejects, the manuscript would be rejected and returned to the author with comments for rejection. In case the author is not satisfied with the decisions of the reviewers they are entitled to appeal against it with proper reasons and an explanation for why the manuscript can be accepted. The editor-in-chief decides on reconsidering for second peer review process based on the author’s reasons and explanation.
Once the manuscript is finalized and all the review comments have been rectified to the satisfaction of both the reviewer and editor, a pre-print proof is sent to the author for final proof correction and approval. After proof corrections are done by the author on the final version (Preprint Proof) of the manuscript, the manuscript is formatted as PDF files for publication. We try our best to peer review screen the manuscript from submission till publication and any time the manuscript is found defective in its content/breaching of embargo/unethical practice of the author etc, then rectification/explanation would be requested from the author and if not suitably rectified/explain, then the manuscript would be held from publishing.
In the case of a provisionally accepted manuscript, the IJISR requests the author to send a written declaration from a suitable doctorate in that field to send a declaration vouching that the manuscript is authentic and original. This doctorate person should not be any of the authors of the manuscript. This declaration supports the originality of the manuscript along with our peer review and reflects the author’s credibility. After proof corrections are done by the author the final version of the manuscript is formatted as PDF files for publication.