Review Process

Review Process

An author accepts the responsibility of preparing the research paper for evaluation by independent reviewers. The responsibility includes subjecting the manuscript to evaluation by peers and revising it prior to submission. The review process is not to be used as a means of obtaining feedback at early stages of developing the research paper. Reviewers and editors are responsible for providing constructive and prompt evaluation of submitted research papers based on the significance of their contribution and on the rigors of analysis and presentation.

Articles accepted would be copy edited for grammar, punctuation, print style, and format. Page proofs will be sent to the first contributor, which has to be returned within three days. Correction received after that period may not be included.

The manuscripts will be reviewed for possible publication with the understanding that they are being submitted to one journal at a time and have not been published, simultaneously submitted, or already accepted for publication elsewhere.

The Editors review all submitted manuscripts initially. Manuscripts with insufficient originality, serious scientific flaws, or absence of importance of message are rejected. All manuscripts received are duly acknowledged. The journal will not return the unaccepted manuscripts. Other manuscripts are sent to two or more expert reviewers following the double-blind review process. Each manuscript is also assigned to a member of the editorial team, who based on the comments from the reviewers takes a final decision on the manuscript. Within a period of 2 to 3 weeks, the contributors will be informed about the reviewers’ comments and acceptance/rejection of manuscript.

Peer Review System

The journal exercises double-blind peer review process to ensure anonymity from the reviewer and the author of the research article to avoid any partiality or any limitation from the review process in case of familiarity between both parties. It is the responsibility of the reviewer to provide substantial comments and suggestions for the improvement of the paper to maintain the quality of the research article to be published in the journal. The reviewer shall take the evaluation of the general content in terms of academic significance of the research paper, its contribution to the community, technical novelty, quality of information and language usage. In terms of specific content, the reviewer provides evaluation in terms of the accuracy and unity of information in the abstract, relevance of introduction, literature and studies to the topic as well as the coherence of the objectives; preciseness of materials and methods used, completeness of results and discussion and comprehensiveness of drawing conclusion out of the salient findings and the thoroughness of the reference list.

The research article will be sent to two (2) reviewers and they will decide to publish the paper unaltered, accept after revision suggested in the review, review again after major changes or reject. If one of them decides to reject the paper and the other one decides to accept, this is the only time the paper will undergo another review and will be sent to the third reviewer.

Editorial Responsibilities

Submitted papers will be evaluated based on its scientific and systematic research method and not through lack of technical novelty. Fair decision will be observed by the editorial board irrespective of race, culture, origin, gender or citizenship of the author. Situations that may lead to conflicts of interest should be avoided.

Confidential Process

Since double-blind peer review process is being observed by the journal, the anonymity of both parties (author and reviewer) will remain confidential. The communication between the corresponding author and the Editor should not be posted on any website or social media as well as the result of the Reviewer’s Report or Evaluation and any confidential materials without prior permission from the Editor whether or not the submission is eventually published.